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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 550: Entrances and Exits, Transcript

June 30, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/entrances-and-exits).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Hey, Yankee fans. My name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** This is Episode 550 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, how do you move characters in and out of a scene? Do you even need to? It’s a very technical, crafty, words on the page topic, the kind we haven’t done in a while, because we haven’t had Craig for a while. We’ll also have listener questions on bad behavior by producers, managers, and even good friends.

**Craig:** Oh, god.

**John:** In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, do we want to live forever? We’ll discuss longevity and the possibility of never dying. First, Craig, we got two pieces of Craig-centric follow-up for you.

**Craig:** Oh, all right.

**John:** This one goes all the way back to your Q and A episode, which I’m sure you don’t remember. There was a guy who wanted you to convince him to drop out of film school. Megana, we got an update from him, don’t we?

**Megana Rao:** Yes, so Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School wrote back in, and he said, “Thank you so much for answering my question on Episode 544. The first thing I want to do is apologize to Craig. Everything you said made sense, and I couldn’t have agreed with your thoughts more, but unfortunately, I just can’t bring myself to drop out. Given my situation, dropping out would force me to step my part-time work up to full-time and find a new place to live. However, while this would be difficult to do, it would still probably result in a boatload of money saved and give me far more time to work on my writing. The real problem is I just can’t stand the idea of everyone in my life looking at me like I’m an idiot. Dropping out of college, especially when I’m this close to finishing, isn’t going to make sense to anyone around me. While I know Craig might be on my side, it won’t really sway the opinions of my family or friends. It’s not like I have some concrete thing I’m dropping out for to point people towards. Being in school makes it look like you’re working toward something. While in this business, that might not really be the case, people on the outside aren’t going to understand that. I wish I could be the kind of person that didn’t care about this and just did what I knew was right, but there’s something inside of me that just won’t let me.”

**John:** Craig, I listened to that episode, and I thought your advice was my advice. I would encourage him to drop out.

**Craig:** I’ll tell you what, Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School. I don’t want you to beat yourself up too much, but do me a favor. Don’t make this a final decision, because I’m not sure everyone in your life is going to look at you like an idiot. In fact, I’m pretty sure that everyone in your life is going to spend about seven seconds on this and then move on with the rest of themselves, because that’s who they’re thinking about all the time. I just don’t know why people will really get that worked up. Your friends are going to get that worked up over it? Really? Because honestly, I didn’t really care whether my friends graduated from college or not. That’s not what I valued about them. Yes, being in school makes it look like you’re working toward something. That’s how they get you. That’s what you’re paying for, an illusion, which you now realize, I think, is an illusion.

I also notice that you said, “Given my situation, dropping out would force me to step my part-time work up to full-time.” Yes. This is okay. Here’s the thing. I think you’re scared, and I get that you’re scared, but take a moment. Don’t necessarily think of this as a final decision. It’s okay if you stay in college. I won’t be angry.

**John:** One additional thing this makes me think of is this theory that you have 4,000 weeks in your life. Basically, if you live to 80 years old, you’re going to have essentially 4,000 weeks to spend. If Please Convince Me to Drop Out of Film School decides to drop out of film school, he’s really basically taking that chunk of time and deciding to do something different with it. I think it’s his time alone. It’s not his friends’ time. It’s not his family’s time. It’s really how does he want to spend that time. If it’s at school, great, but if it’s not in school, that’s also fine.

**Craig:** You get once, one trip. It’s okay if you finish. Go ahead. I’ll tell you, what’s waiting for you on the other side is a lot of other things that your family or friends may not get. This seems like maybe time to start worrying about that, or at least worrying about it but facing it anyway, because nobody really gets what we’re doing over here in this business. Most people in this business aren’t in this business. They try and be in the business, and they fail. Everybody’s going to be looking at you. You’re going to have to face it at some point.

**John:** Megana, we have more crucial Craig follow-up here.

**Megana:** Yes. Andy in New York asks, “I Googled Craig Mazin orthotics to find the name of the product that Craig mentioned as his One Cool Thing in Episode 492, and he said as he unboxed and deployed them that they felt like other insoles he’d used, but that over time he’d see how they worked and report back, which he did a week later but not since then. I’m wondering, what is the long-term verdict now that a year has passed? Are they still holding up and supportive? I’m a runner with high arches and developing a murderous heel problem that some store-bought Dr. Scholl’s type inserts are helping a little with, but I need something more substantial.”

**Craig:** I’m glad that you checked in on this, Andy. They held up. The sneakers that I generally wear right now are pretty supportive for my flat feet. I have the opposite problem that you have. I don’t use them with these, but I will slip them into boots. I will slip them into dress shoes and things. They absolutely work. They are, as far as I can tell, the exact same damn thing that we were paying way too much money for when we went to the orthotic foot podiatrist. I think actually that that’s what they were doing there. You would go to the podiatrist and you would step on something and they would take a thing of it and send it off to some factory. These guys were like, we’ll just give you the box of foam and you can do it yourself, go to the same factory.” The answer is, Andy, yes, I think they are worth giving a shot. They do seem to me like they are pretty much exactly what you would get if you went to a doctor.

**John:** Nice. All right, Craig, it has been way too long since we’ve had you here so we can do a craft episode. I really want to focus in on entrances and exits. I thought we might start with an iconic entrance into a scene. This is from an independent film called The Room. It finds one character coming onto this rooftop and meeting his friend Mark and initiating conversation. Let’s take a listen.

**Johnny:** I did not hit her. It’s not true. It’s bullshit. I did not hit her. I did not. Oh hi, Mark.

**Mark:** Oh hey, Johnny. What’s up?

**Johnny:** I have a problem with Lisa. She said that I hit her.

**Mark:** What? Did you?

**Johnny:** No, it’s not true. Don’t even ask. What’s new with you?

**Mark:** I’m just sitting up here thinking. I got a question for you.

**Johnny:** Yeah?

**Mark:** You think girls like to cheat like guys do?

**Johnny:** What makes you say that?

**Mark:** I don’t know. I don’t know. I’m just thinking.

**Johnny:** I don’t have to worry about that because Lisa is loyal to me.

**Mark:** Yeah, man, you never know. People are very strange these days.

**John:** Craig, there’s so much to unpack here.

**Craig:** There is not.

**John:** It really is a remarkable occasion. Even the most perfectly performed version of this scene has some real issues in terms of characters coming onto the scene. Let’s talk about entrances. Let’s talk about exits.

**Craig:** Oh hi, John.

**John:** Hi, John.

**Craig:** Oh hi, John.

**John:** I’m going to monologue to myself for a second. Then I’m going to notice that you’re there. Then I’m going to start the conversation.

**Craig:** “I did not hit her. I did not.” On a roof?

**John:** On a roof.

**Craig:** On a roof.

**John:** I’m going to throw this football to nobody on a rooftop.

**Craig:** First, I’m going to throw my water bottle on the ground, and then, “Oh hi, Mark.” Entrances and exits are extraordinarily important, and to me, afford you a possibility to find the spine of your scene, the structural aspect. We’re not necessarily talking about all the lovely little bits and bobs that happen through relationship and dialog and thoughts and unspoken feelings, but rather the structure of it all, what does it look like, where are we, what’s the pace and the tempo. One of the things that I think about when I’m directing scenes is entrances and exits and how they occur, from whose perspective, why are people entering, what kind of energy do they have when they’re entering, where are they going, where are they leaving. Entrances and exits will take more time to shoot if you’re doing them properly. Bringing people in and out of spaces matters. Let’s dig in to how we can help shape those moments on the page so that when they get to the screen, they don’t look like what we just saw.

**John:** Let’s go into the history of entrances and exits, because obviously, originally, before there were motion pictures, there were staged plays. Characters need to enter into a scene. You look through Shakespeare’s plays, characters enter and they exit, and that’s great. It’s fine. People are coming in from the weekends or you are lifting the curtain to reveal people already in the scene. Through the wonder of film and television, we can just be in the middle of a scene. We can cut to the middle of a scene, and we don’t need to have characters enter and exit, except sometimes it’s incredibly helpful.

I want to talk about how we make those decisions as writers. I think Craig makes an important point, is as a director you are also making some decisions about shooting those entrances, shooting those exits, making sure you have choices and options. You can be thinking about does the camera find the character there, is the character already there. You’re going to be making those choices from the start. A lot of it is about POV within the scene and also from the audience’s perspective, who is important. A character that we follow coming into a scene, we are with them. We know that they are the person we are centered upon. If we’re just in a scene where a bunch of characters are there, we may not know who is the person who’s our point of view. It may only be when we follow one of those characters out of that scene we realize, oh, this person now is carrying our point of view.

**Craig:** You can obviously make a handoff of POV, where you start with one person’s POV and then it turns to another. The camera just now picks up a new person. Typically, that’s probably not going to happen in a very typical way. Somebody enters a space and ideally, they enter with purpose. This is the most important thing. Obviously, this clip from The Room is really funny because the dialog is ridiculous and the acting is terrible. Underneath the ridiculous dialog and the bad acting, there is a root cause. The root cause is purposelessness. There is no reason for this man to be entering and walking out onto that roof. None. He just does it, because the movie needed him to be on the roof.

While we may think of this as the domain of movies like The Room, I actually see this in writing all the time from people. People just enter. They walk into a space purposelessly, and then something happens. I refuse to do this. Everybody who’s going into a space has a purpose. It doesn’t need to be earth-shattering. Sometimes it’s I can’t find my keys. There needs to be a reason you walk into a room. If you walk into a room without a reason and then something happens, without ever understanding why they don’t like it, the audience will not like it the way you want them to.

**John:** 100%. I see this on the page a lot too. I see it in some of our Three Page Challenges. I see it in scripts written by newer writers, where they are constantly having people enter into spaces. Let’s talk about some of the reasons why you might want to have a character enter a space, which I think are sometimes more limited than you’d imagine. Obviously, you’re saying there’s a purpose to it. Obviously, the character has to have a purpose. You as a writer may also want to give them a purpose, because you need that entrance to show geography, to establish geography. It gives you a chance to move from one space into another space and give a layout of what this space is going to be like.

You might have a character enter the scene because you want to build tension, build tension with the other people who are in there, or because in this new space is going to be some danger, some peril, some immediate attention that’s going to be happening. Show that character entering, as I said before, because you want to establish that this next scene is happening from their POV and that you make it clear that this is the central character I want you to be following as this next scene happens. All that only happens if you need to have a character walking in, because you always have the choice to just start the scene with the characters already in it. You could start with just a line of dialog. Characters don’t need to physically walk in in most cases.

**Craig:** That’s really where you can expose that you’re missing something, because if you do imagine starting the scene with somebody already there, you probably start feeling a bit ill as you’re writing it. What are they doing? Because there’s supposed to be a whole scene that happens. There are these meta requirements. I need a scene where Mark listens to whatever the Room guy’s name was, where the Room guy tells Mark about his troubles with his girlfriend that he did not hit. Fine, okay, I need that. Great, that’s what I need as a writer. Now, the characters are not accountable to my needs. They have to present as human beings with their own needs and their own purposes. They don’t need to be there unless I can see them on screen going, oh my god, there’s only one person who could possibly understand the position I’m in. Then maybe I can see it. If you imagine them just starting on the roof together in their weird chairs, it would be a very awkward beginning, because there’s really no reason for them to be there.

One of the things that we have to think about when we are writing is drawing a line between the fact that we need people somewhere and that they don’t know that. You can come up with almost anything. It doesn’t have to be earth-shattering. It doesn’t have to be even impactful as a character. If I needed to get Room guy on the roof, he’s angry, he walks into a bathroom, he tries to splash some water on his face, and no water comes out. He slams his hand on the sink, “Dammit, nothing’s going right today. My girlfriend’s-”

**John:** “I did not hit her.”

**Craig:** “She’s falsely accused me of domestic violence, and also the plumbing is not working. I have to go to the roof and check the water tower,” blah. Then he goes to the roof and he’s like, “Bah!” Then he’s slamming on it. He’s like, “Mah, mah.” Then Mark is like, “Hey, Johnny.” He’s like, “What? Oh hi, Mark.” I understand why he’s there. Now, Mark is going to have to explain why he’s there. That’s the first question. The first thing that should be out of this dude’s mouth is not, “I did not hit her. I did not,” but they need reasons. It could be mundane. It could be anything. It just has to be compelling is the most important thing.

**John:** Let’s talk about if you wanted to remove the entrance of a character. You want to actually start the scene with the two characters talking. How do we do that? It comes from the scene before that. Basically, are you leaving the prior scene with enough of a slant, with enough forward energy that we can come into that next scene understanding what it is that they’re doing? This could be an intervening scene. Basically, when we see those two characters there, do we understand what each of them wants, what their motivation is, and what this conversation or this moment could be about? That’s really what we’re asking. That’s why you don’t have to have characters enter into every scene, as long as we understand what they’re doing there, which is why Mark is on the roof, why Room guy has come up onto the roof. Then it’s fine. We can do it. Otherwise, you’re going to probably need to show some connective tissue to get us up into that space, because otherwise it won’t make sense why we got there.

**Craig:** Roofs are challenging, because people generally aren’t on them. Now, if they were, say, at a restaurant, then you could start it in media res, meaning, for those of you who have saved money and not gone to film school, right in the middle of stuff. Right in the middle of the action, you just cut into the two of them are sitting there at a table, halfway through lunch. One of them is shoving salad into his mouth, and the other one’s like, “I don’t know, I didn’t hit her, and she’s saying that I hit her.” The other one’s like, “Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh,” because we understand as human beings, I don’t need to see them enter the restaurant, be seated and all that. That’s okay if the place requires it.

Now, there are places where you must enter. New places. You must enter a new place. When I say new place, I don’t mean a new place like a new restaurant. I mean a new place of significance in your story. You don’t want to just start with people in the middle of, for instance, a basement in a house, where they went looking for a murder victim, and they find bones. They should enter the house. They should look for the basement. They should walk down. It should feel creepy.

**John:** Let’s talk about why you want someone to enter into that basement. You probably want to establish some geography so we know, how do I get from where I am to where I get out, because that could become very important, and also just to establish what is this place. If you just show us this dark room, we don’t know where we are. That’s why it’s so helpful to have a character lead us from a place we do know into this place we don’t know.

**Craig:** Yes. Here’s a little fun technique I use sometimes. I guess I’ll call it the reverse entrance. You do start in a space someone has not entered. They’re already there. We don’t know what it is. We are confused. They have a moment. Then when they exit, we go, oh, that was a basement, or oh, that was a fake thing or whatever. I guess the best example of the reverse exit are all the simulation scenes where something’s happening and then the lights come on. It’s like, you weren’t really in an airplane. It was a simulation. That’s a reverse exit. You can try these things. You just have to give people signposts as you do it.

**John:** Now let’s talk about exits, because so often the standard of screenplay advice is basically get out of the scene quicker. Getting out of the scene quicker often means leaving before the characters are leaving the scene. If you think about how movies generally work, if you and I were having a conversation, we wouldn’t get to the crucial point and then just one of us just leave and physically walk out of the room. Craig and I sometimes, that would happen. Instead, we would keep talking. We don’t want to keep talking. We want to get to the next thing, and so we just cut to the next thing.

There are times though where you may want to show that exit. We talked about that at the start. You may want to hand off POV from one character to another character. You might want to really just make it clear that the scene has ended, that there’s not going to be an ongoing continuation of the dialog, of the conflict that we saw, that it really has ended and one character has left and headed in the direction that’s taking us to the next part of the story. I would suspect that, Craig, even in the scenes you’re working on right now, the scenes you’re shooting, you probably anticipate characters exiting, that you’ll make choices ultimately though in post about whether you’re going to show the exit or not show the exit.

**Craig:** I try and write that in. I try and plan that on the page. If there are two people in a scene or more, the reason to show somebody exiting at the end is to then put the camera on the face of the person who is remaining, so that I understand how they feel about what this person just said. Walking away from somebody indicates finality. It’s a pretty good way of saying you have a choice to make, figure it out, I’m going to walk away from you now, or perhaps it’s I’m leaving you. If somebody is breaking up with you, they should definitely exit the room. That would be a weird… Sometimes on soap operas they’ll do that, where someone’s like, “We’re through,” and then they just cut to the other person’s face, but the other person never leaves, just to save time. If the point is I’m leaving you, leave.

If I want to see how somebody feels by what that other person has said, and they’ve essentially left them in a space where they could go different ways, sometimes, sure, it’s interesting to watch them leave, because their leaving is meaningful to the people who are left behind. If it’s not, then it’s not necessary. Then you absolutely can just end on someone’s face, considering what’s happening. If you are alone in a scene and you leave, the only real reason that I would ever need to see someone leave alone is if something then changed after they left. They’re playing with their puppy, and then they’re like, “Oh my god, I wish you could talk.” Then they leave, and then the puppy’s like, “If you only knew.” Yeah, sure, but otherwise-

**John:** That’s going to be a really unusual situation.

**Craig:** Very, very rare.

**John:** Let’s take a look through some of our own scripts about some moments where we’ve had characters enter and why we scripted them in to have characters enter into scenes, because I think it would be sometimes better to actually look at things on the page. I’ll start with a little snippet from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I’ll just read this aloud. “The front door swings open, revealing Charlie’s father, a lanky, hardworking man in his late 30s, who manages to be grateful for his blessings, however slight they are. ‘Evening, Bucket.’ ‘Hi, Dad.’ Mother says, ‘The soup’s almost ready. I don’t suppose there’s anything extra to put?’ Off her husband’s look, there’s clearly no more food coming. Ever chipper, Mother says, ‘Well, nothing goes better with cabbage than cabbage.'”

This is an example of a scene that’s been happening, and a new character enters into the scene. Father Buckets could’ve already been in the scene, but it’d be very hard to shift our focus to Father Bucket’s if he was already in the scene. Having him come in the door changes what this moment is about and lets him drive the next little bit of conversation. Bringing a new character into an existing scene is a classic example of why you’d have to show the entrance of the character.

**Craig:** Also, sometimes somebody needs to share information with the audience. In this case, there’s information that you are putting out there through some nicely done exposition. The information you’re putting out there is that they’re extremely poor and short on food to the point where there’s no protein to put in their cabbage soup. I say protein because somewhere along the line restaurants started saying protein. They used to just say meat. Then they switched over to protein.

**John:** It can be tofu.

**Craig:** I guess I’m going to go with that, as if Father Bucket was ever going to say, “Oh no, no, I’ve brought tofu.” That’d be kind of amazing actually, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if he just brought home tofu. You need people to know that. The problem is, if Dad is already there, why would she just suddenly say, “Hey, by the way, now, even though you’ve been here this whole time, I have a question for you.” Because he enters, it allows Mom to ask a question that’s been on her mind. It gives us a chance to have some natural exposition, as opposed to some weird, forced exposition.

**John:** Indeed. Let’s take a look at a little snippet from Chernobyl. Do you want to read this aloud for us?

**Craig:** Sure. “Brazhnik, 20s, enters the control room in a panic. ‘There’s a fire in the turbine hall. Something blew up.’ Dyatlov pauses, lost in thought. His face is unreadable. Agonizing seconds tick by. Then he turns coldly to Akimov.”

**John:** You made the choice to have Brazhnik enter into the scene. Again, it’s an ongoing scene, and a new character enters with new information. That’s crucial. I can imagine a version of the scene where Brazhnik looks at some sort of terminal thing or he gets a call and he says this, but it makes much more sense to have a new character enter into the scene to let us know this.

**Craig:** This was about keeping a sense of panic. People running in and saying things, and that person looks confused, tells us a lot, more so than if someone looked at a monitor and goes like, “Uh-oh, there’s a fire in the turbine hall.” People can go, okay, I guess that’s a fact, but I get to see somebody’s face. I get to see how someone reacts to somebody running into the room, which is interesting. I also get a sense that there’s a world beyond this room that is very different than what’s happening in the room. There’s a lot of information that can happen, but only happens if somebody new can enter and disrupt the conversation that exists.

**John:** Also giving us a sense of geography. We know how do I get into and out of this room, which becomes important. You’re establishing a new character, Brazhnik. This is the first time we’re seeing him.

**Craig:** And the last, as it turned out.

**John:** It gives a moment to put a spotlight on this character, which would’ve been hard if they were all already in the room milling about. A very classic thing.

**Craig:** There was an interesting thing where he runs through and says this. Dyatlov makes a decision. Brazhnik is like, “What do we do about the fire?” Dyatlov says, “Call the fire brigade.” Then Dyatlov walks out, leaving him. This guy came in figuring something would happen, and then somebody walks out and makes an exit, sort of like your entrance changed nothing, my friend, goodbye. Entrance and exit there doing almost all of the work.

**John:** Lastly, lets take a look at a clip from The Nines. This is Melissa McCarthy’s character, Margaret. It’s the first time we’re seeing her. She’s in a police station. It’s again one of those, I guess we could call it a reverse entrance, where we’re not really quite sure why we’re here or who these people are until the second character comes in, which is Gary, played by Ryan Reynolds. “Margaret says, ‘He’s coming. I’ll call you back later.’ She hangs up, wrapping the earpiece around her phone. We reveal Gary being escorted through the glass doors by a polo-shirted parole officer. Margaret moves to intercept them, offering a hand. She says, ‘Hi, Margaret, I work for Lola.’ Gary, ‘I know.’ She says to the parole officer, ‘We need to go out the back.'” We’ve established a new character and that she is going to be interfacing with him and actually has some authority over the situation here. She could tell a parole officer what they’re going to be doing. Again, I’m using the entrance here to allow me to establish this character without getting a full proper introduction and then changed POVs when we finally see this character we’ve already established in the film come out.

**Craig:** In the How to Write a Movie episode, we talk about these different axes of action. One of them is internal, and one of them is interpersonal. Exits and entrances give you a chance to blend both, which is a nice thing. If you think about how we go throughout our day, much of our day is spent with ourselves thinking. We’re in our own heads. Then there’s parts of our day where we get out of our own heads. We have an interaction. The entrance and exit forces somebody out of their internal state.

When Margaret’s on the phone, technically she’s interacting with somebody, but in fact it feels internal, because we’re just looking at her. We’re in her head. We’re thinking about things. She hangs up. In the space between her hanging up and Gary suddenly appearing, there’s this brief moment where she’s in her head, and then boop, you got to get out. That helps actors. It gives them things to do. It gives them changes, which they love. It allows Margaret to move. It says, “Margaret moves to intercept them.” She’s got purpose. She’s driven by the fact that he has entered, as opposed to him just being there and her saying, “Hi, my name’s Margaret. I work for Lola. We need to go out the back.” She wouldn’t feel like much of a person. She has life and existence because she exists prior to his appearance.

**John:** All through these examples the actors who play these characters can know what their motivations are. They know what they’re trying to do in the scene, which I think is so crucial. I think the entrances and exits are helping them there figure out what it is they’re trying to accomplish next, because when you’re on the set as the writer or the director, and they’re coming up to you, it’s like what am I trying to do, here it’s on the page. You can see what it is they’re trying to accomplish in these small moments. Great. Craig, it’s a pleasure to get to do another craft little segment with you here, but we have a ton of listener questions stacked up, so maybe we’ll try to get through some of these listener questions.

**Craig:** Yeah, let’s go.

**John:** Megana Rao, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Can I ask a question about the thing you guys just talked about?

**Craig:** Wait.

**John:** Please, please.

**Craig:** Wait, hold on, so you’re just going to jump the queue, Megana, and put your question first? Fine.

**Megana:** You’re right, you’re right. Fine, we can go-

**Craig:** No, put yours first. I need to know.

**John:** Please do this.

**Craig:** Do it.

**Megana:** This topic came out of a discussion where John was saying that one of the things he’s learned as he’s grown as a writer is to avoid writing characters into scenes where they don’t have anything to do. In a project that I’m working on, I have a few scenes where it’s about a girls cross-country team, and so they’re traveling. They’re on a bus. They’re in locker rooms together. The dialog is mostly between one or two teammates. Occasionally someone will jump into the action of a scene by interjecting. That feels true to just flitting in and out of conversations and jumping in. I guess I’m reluctant to block or stage it too much, because I don’t want to over-describe and make it difficult for the reader to follow. That feels like a more directorial thing for me. I’m curious if you think it’s easier for the audience and the medium if I show these characters physically moving in and out of a space more. Does that make sense?

**John:** It does. The scene you’re describing is on a bus, you said?

**Megana:** Or let’s just say it’s in a locker room.

**John:** Obviously, we talked before on this show about how in a bigger space you’re going to still have smaller spaces, and you’re going to have groups of people together. People can move between those groups if that’s helpful. I think finding a way to describe this place versus that place, this larger space is going to be your friend. If you need to have one of the characters move from one group to another group, that’s great. You try not to make it too complicated on the page, and really just focus on probably just the dialog, the conversation between those people, and not have it be a big thing. If it was on a bus or in a locker room, up with Cheryl and Sandy, then back with Robin and Kennedy, as they’re talking, their things. You can move back and forth between them. It can be pretty natural. Craig, any more thoughts for Megana there?

**Craig:** Yeah, I don’t worry too much about this sort of thing. If you have a couple of people talking and then you just needed one chime-in line from somebody, just say so-and-so passes through frame, tosses this line out, and then they’re gone. You actually use the frame as your exclusive aspect. In this way, we’re not staring. We don’t have to look at the people not doing something. They can go not do something outside of the frame of what we’re looking at. Then what I try and think about is geography and where two people might be and why other people aren’t right next to them, listening to them. If other people are right next to them, listening to them, then they are doing something. They’re listening and they’re reacting and they’re feeling. If you want one of them to vaguely overhear, drop a little thing, you can also just hear them start the line from across the room, and then the camera cuts and shows them across the way. They have been listening, ha ha. Lots of ways to do it. Is it a comedy?

**Megana:** It has comedic moments, but I wouldn’t say it’s a comedy.

**Craig:** Little more leeway in comedies, but honestly if there’s a vaguely comic moment, that gives you more leeway. Even if there isn’t, just think of the frame of what you’re showing the audience as the space. And any character that’s not in the frame, you’re not accountable for in that moment. If you want to bring them in, you can. You can always bring them in just by having them enter.

**John:** Craig, I have a question for you. Because you’ve been doing this show and directing things or working with other directors, if you have a character exiting the scene and probably exiting frame, if they’re exiting on the right, what is your expectation about where in the frame that character will enter the next time we see them? Is that a thing that’s top of your mind or just whatever works works?

**Craig:** No, unless we’re continuing with them. If they exit right, and then immediately the next cut is them entering, then I would want them, if they exit right… Actually, it really doesn’t matter.

**John:** You could make both things work.

**Craig:** Yeah, a new space affords you a new line of action. Certainly, if there are things in between, then nobody cares who entered right or left. If you’re doing a scene in an airplane, for instance, and somebody exits, heading towards the back of the plane, and the next time you see them they enter the front of the plane, if it’s really close, if it’s only one short scene in between, people might go, wait, she went towards the back of the plane. If you’re walking out of a restaurant and you head out left, and the next shot is you enter your house, you can enter it from any direction you want.

**John:** I was thinking about this, because I just went back and re-watched the pilot to Lost, which holds up incredibly well. In Lost they’re constantly trekking across the island. In my head, I think about them heading one direction when they’re going to the island, one direction when they’re headed back from the island. I don’t think it really matters that much. There are a lot of sequences on the plane where they’re heading up towards the cockpit or back to the back. In those cases, I think even within inter-cutting scenes, you need to keep them moving in the same direction across the frame. We establish a mental geography of where… If a character’s heading this direction, they’re going to the front, if they’re going this direction, to the back. It’s really a situational, based on the kind of thing you’re shooting.

**Craig:** I feel like if it vaguely makes sense, then it’s pretty good. I’m way more concerned about the continuity in the moment.

**John:** Great. Let’s get to some listener questions. We have a whole bunch of them backed up here. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana:** Yes. Wynn wrote in and asked, “Podcasts are large profit centers. Your decision to remain unsponsored is admirable and appreciated. Could you please enlighten us on the details of this decision? Thank you for this wonderful resource you’ve created. I for one would not stop listening if Casper Mattresses began paying you six figures.”

**Craig:** Do the mattress people pay six figures?

**John:** I don’t think they necessarily do. A lot of podcasts have ads. Podcasts make money off ads. There’s nothing wrong with having ads in your podcast. Craig and I just didn’t want to do it, because even reading stuff on the air, that would be fine, Craig would have a fun time with it, but getting the ads, getting all the stuff together, even when you have a service that’s giving the stuff for you, it’s a hassle. Life is too short, and we just didn’t want to have the hassle. Plus, our members are paying us the five bucks a month for the Premium stuff, and that is paying for Megana and for Matthew, so we’re good. This is not a profit-making endeavor for us.

**Craig:** Yeah, that’s what it comes down to for me. I just like the fact that I’m not accountable to anybody. We spend so much time in Hollywood being accountable to the people that are spending the money, paying us, paying for the production. You hope that you can find people who are responsible and nice and humane and have taste. For this podcast, we can do or say anything we want. We are beholden to no one other than each other and Megana. That’s the way I like it. I don’t want somebody from a mattress company calling me and saying that they don’t think I should be telling people to stop going to college. Not that the mattress people would care, but still.

**John:** I think the mattress-college connection is really under-explored.

**Craig:** Also, honestly, I think every podcast has ads except for us. At this point now it’s just become a matter of principle. We’re the only ones left. We’re PBS. I like it that way. John and I are fortunate enough to have careers that work. We don’t need the money, and so the hell with the mattresses.

**John:** I love it. Megana, what else do you have for us?

**Megana:** Typing While Mortified writes, “I just discovered that my manager has been sending his scripts, unsolicited, to companies I’m either currently working with or with whom I recently met to discuss other projects. When I say that he’s sending his scripts, I don’t mean his other clients’ scripts. I mean his scripts that he’s written himself and is hoping these companies will produce. To be clear, these are not connections my manager previously had. They came about through me. I had no idea he was doing this or that he even had aspirations of being a writer. I only found out because one of the companies reached out personally to let me know and asked me to get him to stop.

“The burning embarrassment I feel for myself, and to be honest, even more so for him, is probably a strong indicator that it’s time to cut this guy loose. However, being that he’s had a successful decades-long career as a manager and represents several legitimate writers, whereas I’m in the early stages of my career, I thought I’d turn to the pros for confirmation. This is absurd, right? Or at least a major conflict of interest? It doesn’t feel like there’s a way to salvage this. We’re also right in the middle of negotiating a sale. In the past he’s worked closely with my lawyer to hammer out deals. If I fire this guy, should I wait until this deal’s wrapped up, or is this a situation where no representation is better than his representation?”

**John:** Oh my god, I’m mortified for you. I think you need to get rid of this manager. I think you should let your lawyer finish this up. I also think you should talk with this manager’s other clients who are more established and just make sure that they know that this is happening, that he’s doing this, because this is just not acceptable, what he’s doing. It’s just gross and icky and wrong. Unethical, yeah, I guess, but also just icky. It just makes me feel really uncomfortable, as it makes you feel uncomfortable.

**Craig:** Managers, I swear to God. This is the kind of crap that doesn’t happen with agents, because agents don’t want to be writers. They want to be agents. It’s nice and clean. Agent represents you to try and get work, negotiates deals. Deal negotiated. Doesn’t produce your work. Doesn’t send in his or her own script like a pathetic, sweaty idiot. Your manager stinks. I don’t care who these other clients are. Their manager stinks. It’s pathetic. It’s not absurd. It’s pathetic. It would be a conflict of interest if anybody had any interest in what he’s doing, but it doesn’t sound like they do. It’s just lame. I would fire him now.

**John:** It’s lame.

**Craig:** Just get rid of him now. It’s lame. Get rid of him, because you don’t need him to hammer out the deal. Trust me, he’s not hammering out anything. The lawyer will do the details of the deal, and you don’t need to wait until the deal’s wrapped up. Furthermore, managers are not like agents where they get paid their money on commission for sale. They’re being paid money on commission to manage. There’s this concept of on the wheel, off the wheel. They are on the wheel when they are managing you. They are off the wheel when they are not. If they are not going to be managing you through the process of writing this, I don’t see why they should get 10% of it at all. I think you should fire them now. Save yourself 10%. Get an agent. Get an agent or an actual agency, and get out of this manager crap. I swear to God, more of these ding-dongs are out there just…

**John:** I agree. Get yourself an agent. I think you should have high hopes of getting an agent, because you just made a sale. Agents want people who are working, who are selling things. I think you’ll be able to get an actual proper agent. You don’t need this manager. Questionable whether you need a manager at all. You need somebody better than this person representing you, so get rid of them. Craig, I don’t think you and I have ever talked about The Player, the great Michael Tolkin movie The Player. I’m remembering a moment in The Player where Tim Robbins’s character opens a door, and you see he actually has a screenplay of his own that he’s wrote, that he’s never actually taken out any place. It got me thinking about, we haven’t discussed executives who write, because there are some of them. Some of them are okay, but it’s just a weird thing.

**Craig:** It’s rare. There are certainly executives that thought about being writers and ended up being executives. There was one executive at the erstwhile, the old version of Fox, who was infamous for inserting his own dialog into things. Pretty rare though. I’ve actually never worked with an executive that wrote. Toby Emmerich, who runs Warner Brothers, was a screenwriter, then became an executive, so he went in the other direction. I think in The Player, that’s a nice indication. I love that movie. It’s the most writer revenge movie of all time. Of course, the evil studio executive secretly wants to be a writer but can’t. That’s pretty classic.

**John:** James Schamus is probably one of the best, most acclaimed executives who also is a writer on his own.

**Craig:** Yeah, he’s the one guy that does that.

**John:** Megana, who else do we have here?

**Megana:** AJ from LA writes, “Frequently when I tell someone about what I’m writing, I’ll get the response, ‘Oh, that sounds like blank.’ My issue isn’t that I am worried about being original, but that it stops a conversation dead if I’ve not seen the show or movie they’re referencing. The conversation then shifts to this thing they just saw, and I get defensive trying to identify how my script is different from a show I haven’t even seen yet. To defend against this, I’ll just default to saying the genre of the thing I’m working on. This feels like a wasted opportunity to potentially get someone interested in what I’m writing. I do live in LA with industry friends. Do you have any tips for how to talk enthusiastically about what I’m writing without making it an invitation for people to tell me what it reminds them of? Do you still have to grapple with the originality police, or is this something that is a non-issue with professional writers?”

**Craig:** That’s a really good question. I like that question.

**John:** It is.

**Craig:** AJ, here’s what I would recommend. It’s okay when they say, “What are you writing?” to say, “It’s a such-and-such story, but ultimately what it’s really about is this woman and her relationship with this guy. Here’s what the story’s really about. It’s about da da da da da.” Get into character, relationship, theme, the purpose, the function, because the truth is everything sounds like something. If all you do is tell them, “It’s a story about a bank heist that takes place on the moon,” they’re going to be like, “Oh yeah, there’s 14 of those.”

“It takes place in space, and it’s set against a bank heist, but here’s what it’s really about. It’s about a man who got divorced and he’s trying to get back with his daughter,” and da da da da da and blah blah. That’s where all of your passion’s going to be anyway. If your passion’s only about the bank heist and the moon, then I think people are going to get a bit sleepy anyway. Talk about the characters. Talk about the relationship. Talk about the theme. Talk about the heart of it. Talk about the stuff that makes you excited. Don’t worry if they say it sounds like something else. You be like, “Yeah, plot-wise, probably a lot of overlap, but here’s what is original about what I’m doing.”

**John:** I completely agree. I’ll say things like, “I’m writing a thriller about trust and these two characters who can’t trust each other but are forced to deal with each other in order to solve the situation,” which sounds vague and hand-wavy, but if they’re curious then I can get into more specific details. What I try not to do is the heist on the moon or something that just feels like such an obvious type previous that they’re going to compare it to other things or it’s really clear it’s the next version of this thing. It’s Speed on a dirigible.

**Craig:** I’d watch it.

**John:** It’s called Slow. I also get, AJ, you’re working in this town, and you do have those conversations. It’s important to be able to have those conversations and bounce things off. People can sometimes be helpful. You want to be able to talk about what you’re writing, but I think Craig’s instinct is right. Talk about what it is that’s exciting to you about the thing that you’re writing, not just the trailer of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. AJ, it’s okay to agree with them. You say, for instance, you start getting defensive trying to identify your script as different. Don’t be defensive. Embrace it. Just be like, “It’s similar, except it’s completely different. Here’s how it’s completely different.” Just talk about the stuff that makes you excited. There’s no difference, by the way, between the position that you’re in and the position that John or I are in. If someone asked me what I’m working on right now, I’ll say, “Post-apocalyptic pandemic. Hang on.” I’m okay with them going, “Oh for God’s sakes, another one?” I’m like, “Hang on. That part is not what it’s about. This is what it’s about.” Then I talk to them about what it’s about to me. Then they start to lean forward. Embrace that your project is both original and not original at all. That’s the nature of what we do.

**John:** You’re making a piece of filmed entertainment that’s going to be about 100 minutes long. There’s nothing original about that at all.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** People have been making those things for 100 years.

**Craig:** Exactly. It’s got scenes in it? What? That other thing that I saw had scenes.

**John:** Is there a horse? I said no horse movies. Megana, what else do you have for us?

**Megana:** Em asks, “I’m working on a script that centers around sexual assault. Due to the subject matter, I have a problem I need to resolve. I need a trigger warning. I never show the assault, but I do include other scenes that are traumatic in its aftermath. I need to warn readers in advance. Have you ever included a trigger warning in anything you’ve written? What did it look like? Currently, I’m planning to use a statistic on the first page. Do you think that that would suffice? The statistic is below, and it’s upsetting but tonally consistent with the story I’m telling. I’m not comfortable handing the script to readers without a warning, and this is currently my best idea.”

**John:** The statistic they have listed here is that, “In a study of college age men, 84.9% said they had no intention to rape a woman. Of those same men, 17.8% said they would force a woman into sexual intercourse.” That was the statistic they’re thinking about putting. Craig, I think we’ve talked about trigger warnings before, but not in terms of on a screenplay. What’s your instinct for Em here?

**Craig:** I think it’s fair for you to just put a little page between the title page and the beginning of the script that says this script is about sexual assault and contains scenes of sexual assault. That’s it. I wouldn’t use the phrase trigger warning. I would just simply consider it a disclosure. Just disclose it. That’s all. Then leave it be. I don’t think the statistic is going to help. I think the statistic might feel more like when somebody puts a quote from Oscar Wilde on the front page to steal some drama from something. I would just be very plain and very simple, like you said. You want people to know that there are scenes that are about sexual assault. Actually, it looks like it says you don’t actually show the assault in the script. Just say the script centers around sexual assault and those themes are discussed. Anyone who doesn’t want to read a script that involves sexual assault will go, “Oh, okay,” and then move on to the next script. Other people will say, “Got it, I will now continue.” Just real simple. That’s what I would do.

**John:** We’ve talked about it on the show before. There’s been some scientific studies of are warnings helpful or are warnings triggering in and of themselves? There’s genuine debate about that. I think what Craig is proposing is probably the best answer, because it’s similar to what people are now used to in terms of if you’re watching a show that has flashing lights that could trigger epilepsy, that’s there. There’ll be an M warning for this episode contains episodes of sexual violence. I think those are reasonable steps to take and let people make smart choices about what things they’re going to consume or not consume. Putting it there after the title page, before the script starts, in a very plain way, is probably the right choice for you right now in 2022.

**Craig:** Look, we could get into a whole debate where we ask questions like, do I not mention the fact that my script has murders in it? If it’s a script where there’s a scene that takes place in war, should I put a mention there about war in case a veteran is reading it and they have PTSD. Everybody has something. Drama is constantly circling around violence and destruction, because it’s drama. It’s about our mortal selves and about pain. To the extent that drama is therapeutic, it requires difficult subjects. I guess I would just say follow your instinct. Seems like your instinct is to say something, so say it as plainly as you can say it. That’s my advice.

**John:** Absolutely. That’s why I added the in 2022. I just feel like in this moment we’re in right now, I see these kinds of things being done for this. That’s why I’m not going to put something like, “Just so everyone knows, there’s a scene of murder in this.” That just doesn’t feel natural. I would do it for something like this, just because that’s pretty common, and I think it’s considered helpful. Cool. Great. Let’s get on to our One Cool Things. It’s been a minute, and I was expecting this would be your One Cool Thing, so I did not poach it from you.

**Craig:** You sensed it that it was on the way.

**John:** It feels like a very Craig Mazin…

**Craig:** Oh my god, so Craig Mazin. I appreciate that you know me so well. My One Cool Thing this week is a game for iOS, maybe for Android, I don’t care, called Knotwords, that’s K-N-O-T, Knotwords, by I think at least one of the same guys that does Flip Flop Solitaire, Zach Gage, I believe.

**John:** Yeah, Zach Gage.

**Craig:** It’s a brilliant little concept, very easy to do at first, and then becomes extraordinarily difficult as you proceed, but very rewarding. I guess the way I can say it is that you have a little crisscross crossword, not a standard crossword where it’s one solid square, but one of those crisscrossy ones where there’s lots of gaps. What they’ve done is they’ve basically highlighted a region. That region isn’t always… In fact, it rarely is covering the entire word. It’s usually covering half of one word, a little bit of another. They’ll tell you, these are the letters that have to be in that region. You’re applying logic and word skills and solving.

I’ve gotten into the tricky ones now. They start to give you limitations, like okay, in this row there can be no more than two vowels. It starts getting really, really crunchy. I’m in the tricky version now. I’ve run into one where I’ve been working on it for a day. It’s great. I really love it. I can always go back over to the cas ones to just proceed if I’m feeling like spending some time. Strongly recommend. It is free, although I suspect that occasionally there will be more packs and things that you can buy. It’s available at the app store and Google Play and Steam, Knotwords.

**John:** Knotwords. Craig, I think you missed… One of my One Cool Things in the past was Redactle. Do you play Redactle?

**Craig:** You know what? I’ve looked at people’s Redactle reports. It just seems like a whole lot.

**John:** It can be a whole lot. It can be really fun. It can be half an hour’s worth of work, which is a little too much for a daily puzzle, but always fun to do. My One Cool Thing this week is the Arts District here in Los Angeles. I was just out last night with friends to see two galleries shows and a dinner downtown. It was great. The Arts District, for people who don’t know Los Angeles, or people who live in Los Angeles who’ve never been down there, it’s Downtown, south of Dodger Stadium, east of what you think of as the main part of Downtown. You’re east of the skyscrapers. Lots of galleries, lots of cool spaces, restaurants. I guess my closest thing I would compare it to would be Tribeca, Tribeca when it was becoming Tribeca. Really encourage people to go down there and see stuff.

I saw exhibits at Night Gallery, Hauser and Wirth. We had cocktails at Death and Company, dinner at Manueal. Just really great stuff down in that area. Los Angeles is so huge you can forget that there are just pockets of the neighborhood that you’ve never seen before. I would encourage people to get out and see more of Los Angeles, but also check out the Arts District next time they’re in that part of Los Angeles.

**Craig:** I like the LA Factory Kitchen down there. It’s a good restaurant. I don’t know if you’ve ever eaten there.

**John:** I have not. I would say now that almost all the restaurants are back open and a ton of new restaurants have opened up, it’s a really exciting time just to be going out to dinner in Los Angeles.

**Craig:** What a time to be alive.

**John:** Fantastic. That was our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilleli. Our outro this week is by Owen Danoff. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. You can find the show notes from this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links with things about writing. We just hit Episode 100 of Inneresting and switched over to Substack, so there’s some good new stuff there you can check out. We have T-shirts, they’re great, and hoodies too. 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 how Craig is going to live forever. Craig, so good to have you back.

**Craig:** It’s great to be back.

**John:** Hooray.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, help us out here, because I think this all comes from a listener question that was sent in to us.

**Megana:** Yes. Neil wrote in and asked, “With the longevity movement gaining speed with each new breakthrough, no doubt consequentially in our lifetime, what do you and Craig think about living forever? Is extending life ad infinitum a good thing or is the planet more of a timeshare, and we should eventually move on and make room for the next generations?”

**John:** Craig, how long do you want to live?

**Craig:** I would like to live forever. I feel like the way to live forever is not in this meat suit. I think about this all the time. If you could copy a brain, which theoretically is possible, not with the technology we have now, but let’s say eventually they’re like, “Oh my god, we’ve figured it out. We can totally copy your brain.” If they copied my brain, do I have a split consciousness? Probably not. It would just be two of me with their own consciousness, so in that case I die, so it doesn’t really work, because I’m only this one. Then I have to go to the Futurama, put my brain in a floating jar, which I would be totally fine with.

**John:** I’d be fine with that too. People are down on floating brains in jars.

**Craig:** I love it.

**John:** I think it’s great, love it. Ethical questions, no. What you’re describing in terms of just digitizing your brain, it’s basically the San Junipero episode of Black Mirror. Great, I’m all for it. I’m happy to live forever in a digital version of myself. It would hopefully be a pretty good version of what I can do. I’m great with that. I’m not so scared of the implications of immortality. I come from a family that tends to live a long time. My great-grandma lived to 100 and was coherent all the way through there. I’d like to live to 100 and be fully functional. I want to live long enough to hit that singularity moment where I can just be transferred into just software. That’s good.

**Craig:** It would be nice. Floating brain software, whatever it is, the thing is I just don’t want to live forever as some shriveled old… Inevitably, everybody ends up looking like a prune or a walnut. Then they get confused and then they die. I don’t want to do any of that. I’m going to. Let’s be honest. It’s going to happen. I would totally live forever. I got lots to do. I’m learning all the time. I just think life is interesting. I like what I do. I make things. It’s fun.

**John:** A related conversation though is about retirement. People are always like, “Oh, when are you going to retire?” I’m like, “I don’t intend to retire.” Craig, do you intend to retire?

**Craig:** What’s going to happen is we’re going to get retired.

**John:** That’s really what happens.

**Craig:** At some point people are like, “You’re bad, because you’re out of touch.” Everybody gets out of touch sooner or later. If you don’t get out of touch, now you’re just that creepy old guy that refuses to be out of touch and talks about liking music that he doesn’t be listening to. Everyone’s rolling their eyes and like, “Beat it, old man.” I think what’ll happen is I’ll just eventually beat it, old man. I can see myself drifting into a nice emeritus sort of thing where everybody’s like, “He’s old. We’ll just talk to him about stuff. He can give us advice. Then we’ll go and do stuff.”

**John:** Craig, you’re going to be an amazing character actor when you’re 90. That’s going to be fun.

**Craig:** I’ll be the new Carl Reiner.

**John:** That’s what you’re going to be. Megana, do you want to live forever?

**Megana:** The brain in the jar thing sounds really appealing, because I feel like even currently as writers, our bodies probably get in the way of… As an art form, we’re not really using our bodies. They’re mostly just to get the stuff from our brain onto the page, whereas, I don’t know, a dancer, an actor might have a harder time with that. I already feel like I’m just a brain in this not optimized meat sack.

**John:** Let’s talk about the brain in the jar thing, because an article I read recently, if I can find a link I’ll put it in the show notes, was talking about we think about, oh, we can stick the brain in the jar and we forget that the brain is actually just there to regulate our bodies. A brain without a body is a weird thing. Without its normal inputs it’s going to be interesting to see what we’re like if we don’t have our bodies around us. Yet it’s not hard for us to think about ourselves as being fully digital, because so much of my day I just feel like I’m interacting with people on Twitter, I’m interacting with Megana on Slack. I’m not interacting with a physical person, so interacting with a digital person doesn’t seem that strange to me. The people who work for me who I have not really seen in person, and they’re just a reputation on Zoom, that could all be faked.

**Craig:** John, all the people you’re talking about have a lot of experience working with a digital presence: you. That’s the most robot thing I’ve ever heard you… Megana’s not… She’s an avatar on Slack. Boop.

**John:** Sometimes.

**Craig:** Boop.

**Megana:** I’m constantly wanting to be in the office more. Just so we’re clear on that, I like being in John’s physical presence.

**John:** That’s so nice, and Lambert’s physical presence, an amazing dog you get to hang out with.

**Craig:** Lambert.

**Megana:** That’s true.

**John:** Lambert.

**Craig:** Lambert’s great.

**John:** Lambert’s great. I think I would miss dogs if I were to be a brain in a jar or a digital version. I’d need to have some sort of digital dog to hang out with. What would a vacation be like if you’re a brain in a jar? It does change your nature, because would it just be work all the time?

**Craig:** You’re in VR spaces where you would have a regular body, and you would have a dog that you could play with and feel and touch, because the jar fluid can interact with your brain. Obviously it’s connected somehow to something. I think it sounds great, honestly, as long as it’s not Facebook. If I’m stuck in their stupid thing, then just break the jar and smash my brain. I just can’t.

**John:** That would be the equivalent of just being an old person in a wheelchair who has to watch Fox News all day. Basically, they wheel you up to the TV, and you’re just trapped there to watch Fox TV now. No, thank you.

**Craig:** I’m stuck in a world where there’s just constantly… My third cousin is screaming nonsense at me. I just can’t. I can’t do it. I can’t do it. I just won’t, so just kill me.

**John:** What we’re describing is a crucial difference between brain in a jar versus a person in a coma or someone who’s trapped in a body, has a consciousness, but can’t actually communicate. It’s ability to get input and actually do meaningful work and communicate it outward. That’s the thing that we’re making sure we get, as long as inputs and outputs work.

**Craig:** We don’t want locked-in syndrome. If everybody is connected and we’re all… By the way, that may be where we are right now, just to be clear.

**John:** A simulation, by the way.

**Megana:** Oh, gosh.

**Craig:** We are in a simulation, no question about that, but perhaps right now we are brains in jars. Part of the deal of the brain in the jar is you just don’t remember when you weren’t. All the memories are piped in to start with. Then we are in VR space.

**John:** Really that siren you just heard outside was some sort of signal from the simulation, like there’s some disruption and now they’re fixing the disruption?

**Craig:** Or it was just that routine. It just runs every 20 minutes. Send the ambulance.

**John:** For some reason your simulation does a lot of Grand Theft Auto outside your apartment.

**Craig:** I do love Grand Theft Auto.

**John:** So good. Craig, six weeks I’ve not been able to talk to you about Elden Ring. Are you still enjoying Elden Ring? Are you playing Elden Ring anymore?

**Craig:** I turned away. I was in the mid-70s level-wise.

**John:** That’s about where I am.

**Craig:** I was getting to some cool places. Then I just realized this is it, this is all it’s ever going to be. It’s beautiful, and I’ll probably find some more beautiful places, but I still have no idea what the hell I’m really doing any of this for.

**John:** There’s fingers at the Roundtable Hold.

**Craig:** What is that? What’s happening? Why are those ladies constantly looking at my fingers? What is that?

**John:** They just love fingers.

**Craig:** I don’t know. I don’t know what I’m doing. I don’t know what those trees are about. I don’t know why there are a lot of animated teacups or jars. There are animated jars. I don’t know why.

**John:** They’re brains in jars is really what it is. It felt so good to finally kill that golden knight who’s at the very start, to finally be powerful enough to kill [crosstalk 01:02:34].

**Craig:** I killed that guy too. That was actually probably the moment where I was like, “I think I’m done.” I was like, “I killed that guy. What’s the point?” I’m basically done.

**John:** Living forever is just about playing Elden Ring until you actually solve it, until you actually discover what the meaning of Elden Ring is, and then you die.

**Craig:** What is going on there? It’s so weird. Then I got MLB: The Show and 2022 and I’ve just been playing baseball. That’s what I’ve been doing. There are some good games on the horizon. I’m excited for what’s coming. I enjoyed my time with Elden Ring. It was very satisfying. I got some good kills in there. I was killed in spectacular ways. I’ve seen enough. I’m good.

**John:** Good. Thanks, Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** Thanks, Megana.

**Megana:** Thanks, friends.

**Craig:** See ya.

**John:** Bye.

**Megana:** Bye.

Links:

Links:

* [The Room – “Oh hi Mark” clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aekfPU0SwNw&t=68s)
* [Scriptnotes, Episode 543: 20 Questions with John, Transcript](https://johnaugust.com/2022/scriptnotes-episode-543-20-questions-with-john-transcript)
* [Los Angeles Arts District](https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2019-12-28/four-hours-staying-present-in-the-arts-district): [Hauser + Wirth](https://www.hauserwirth.com/locations/10069-hauser-wirth-los-angeles/), [Night Gallery](https://www.nightgallery.ca/), [Death + Company](https://www.deathandcompany.com/dcdtla/), [Manuela](https://www.manuela-la.com/)
* [Knotwords Game](https://noodlecake.com/games/knotwords/)
* [Upstep Orthotics](https://www.upstep.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Owen Danoff ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/550standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 549: The Sideways Effect, Transcript

June 3, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/the-sideways-effect).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode has a few bad words from Paul Giamatti. Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is Episode 549 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

In Episode 547 we touched briefly on the Sideways effect. Basically, movies sometimes have a real-world impact, not just in culture but also politically and economically. We see the Black representation onscreen or depictions of nuclear power. Movies can make things seem cool or uncool or scary. As screenwriters, we want to be aware of the influence our writing can have.

The term Sideways effect comes from the 2004 film Sideways, written by Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor from the Rex Pickett. Who better to ask about the Sideways effect than the writers themselves? Luckily, someone else just did, so I don’t have to. Today’s episode comes from the amazing Slate podcast Decoder Ring, hosted by Willa Paskin. It’s been one of my One Cool Things before, but this recent episode on the sideways effect was so good, I asked Willa if I could run it as a Scriptnotes episode. She said yes and agreed to have a chat afterwards with me about sideways and other cultural mysteries she’s investigated. Stick around after her episode for our conversation. For our Premium Members, Craig and I will chat about what he’s missed these last few weeks that he’s been gone. Enjoy.

**Willa Paskin:** In October 2004, the movie Sideways was released in theaters. It’s about two guys who go on a bachelors week to Wine Country. One of them is a cad who’s about to get married. The other, played by Paul Giamatti, is Miles, a hardcore wine-lover.

****Miles Raymond:**** We’re going to drink a lot of good wine. We’re going to play some golf. We’re going to eat some great food and enjoy the scenery, and we’re going to send you off in style, mon frere.

**Willa:** Sideways is a small, mellow movie, but it got big. It grossed $110 million worldwide and received five Oscar nominations. It also upended the wine industry. Famously, it is said to have done this with one line of dialogue. It arrives about a third of the way in as the guy are preparing to meet up with two women.

**Jack Cole:** If they want to drink Merlot, we’re drinking Merlot.

**Miles Raymond:** No, if anybody orders Merlot, I’m leaving. I am not drinking any fucking Merlot!

**Willa:** At the time this line was first uttered, Merlot was a popular wine people were chugging down by the glass full. Legend has it that after this line, after, “I’m not drinking any fucking Merlot,” Merlot went ahead and tanked.

**Laura Lippman:** It’s like I’m RoboCop and that’s one of my directives now, no Merlot.

**Willa:** Laura Lippman is a crime novelist who saw Sideways when it first came out. Did you notice right away that it just put you off Merlot?

**Laura:** Yeah, right away. Right away. It was like a battle cry. I have literally tried to kind of overcome that, standing in neighborhood liquor stores and looking at what’s for sale. I can’t do it. I bet I would like Merlot. I think I did like Merlot. It’s so weird. It’s like I’m the most susceptible, suggestible person on the planet.

**Willa:** When it comes to Sideways, Merlot, and wine in general, she’s not the only one. I’m Willa Paskin and this is Decoder Ring. In the mid-2000s, the movie Sideways had an impact on the wine industry so notable that it has a name: the Sideways effect. In this episode we’re going to be looking closely at that effect and what it really is. Did a line in a movie depress Merlot sales for decades? Did a monologue jumpstart demand for a whole other varietal? Did Paul Giamatti’s sad sack character change our relationship to yet another wine, one that was barely mentioned in the film? Today on Decoder Ring, all of these questions and this one. Is it long past time to start drinking some fucking Merlot?

The Sideways effect is not just one thing. There are a number of components to it. I’m going to begin with the best known part of the phenomenon, the one I started with, the theory that Sideways shanked Merlot sales. When Sideways arrived in theaters, Merlot was the trendiest red wine in America, but America had not always had a trendiest wine. The country had been largely indifferent to wine well into the mid 20th century. California whites caught on in the 1970s when one of them won a blind taste test against world-class French wines. Then in the early ‘90s, red wine got a boost when 60 Minutes aired a segment on the so-called French Paradox. The paradox was that French people ate very fatty foods but had much lower rates of heart disease than Americans. The 60 Minutes piece came to a definitive conclusion about what was going on.

**Morley Safer:** The answer to the riddle the explanation of the paradox may lie in this inviting glass.

**Willa:** Sales of red wine spiked, and none benefited more than Merlot, which by the end of the decade would become the most popular red wine in the country.

**Tim Farrell:** Merlot is a good candidate because couple of things.

**Willa:** Tim Farrell is a wine buyer for the wine store Brooklyn Wine Exchange.

**Tim:** This is not actually too simplifying to say. It’s an easy word to pronounce. The other part is that it’s fairly fruit-forward and the tannins aren’t very strong, and the acidities are fairly low, especially when it’s made in California. It’s like a very soft, easy-drinking kind of red wine.

**Willa:** Merlot is most famously grown in Bordeaux, France, largely as a blending grape, but the American boom was centered in California, where production of Merlot quadrupled in the 1990s. Merlot is a relatively easy grape to grow, adaptable to a range of climates and soils, but that doesn’t mean it should be grown everywhere.

**Tim:** Grapes are a funny fruit because the more grape vines has to struggle to ripen, the more flavorful the fruit is.

**Willa:** California’s cool coastal areas are good for Merlot, but during the Merlot boom, it also started being planted in California’s breadbasket, the hot, fertile Central Valley.

**Tim:** That’s where Driscoll’s strawberries come from. If Merlot grows too easy in the irrigated, flat, sunny Central Valley, you’re going to have really bad grapes. That’s where the really bad Merlot grapes were coming from.

**Willa:** The mediocre grapes led to a lot of thin, too sweet Merlot, and even the better stuff was often made to be an affordable, easy sipper, the kind of inoffensive fruit-forward gateway wine offered by the glass and sold in Franzia boxes, all of which made Merlot something of a joke to wine people.

**Rex Pickett:** It was uncool to drink Merlot.

**Willa:** In the 1990s, Rex Pickett was a struggling writer living in Santa Monica.

**Rex:** I’ll try to be brief. My life was shit and I made some films and parted company with my ex-wife, whatever. I started going to wine tastings up at a little wine store. There were doctors and lawyers and snobs and whatever. It was just generally conceded that if you liked Merlot, that you were either a wine philistine or an idiot.

**Willa:** Rex regularly went up to the Santa Ynez Valley, just north of Los Angeles. As Wine Country goes, it’s nowhere near as famous as Sonoma or Napa, which are hundreds of miles north, closer to San Francisco. This region in Santa Barbara County was sleepy and underdeveloped, dotted with horse stables, golf courses, and vineyards.

**Rex:** There’s nobody up there. I’d go up midweek. I was broke. I’d go play golf for $25 on a grape course. I’d go wine tasting. It was free.

**Willa:** Rex poured these trips and his thoughts about wine into a book called Sideways. The main character, Miles, shared a lot with Rex. He was also a frustrated, divorced writer whose favorite wine was Pinot Noir, and who had the reflexive disdain for Merlot, of a 1990s oenophile. When Rex finished the book, it was rejected by dozens of publishers, but it ended up getting to Alexander Payne, the director of Election and About Schmidt.

**Alexander Payne:** I read the book actually on a flight from London to Los Angeles. When I’m reading something that I think could be a movie, I’m just praying, “Oh, please stay good until the end. Don’t come up with some gimmick or guns or violence or something. Keep it a good, sad, funny human story.”

**Willa:** When his plane landed, he called his agent and said he wanted to make Sideways into a movie. Payne is also into wine, and when he co-wrote the screenplay, he knew the no fucking Merlot line was a good one.

**Alexander:** People who knew about wine knew how much crappy Merlot there was. Then I think people who didn’t know about wine and always order Merlot were called out in an affectionate way. It had this kind of snowball effect. It was a good snowballing joke.

**Willa:** It seemed to roll right over Merlot’s reputation. What do you guys make?

**Jeff Bundschu:** We’ve been growing these Bordeaux varietals for as long as I’ve been around.

**Willa:** Jeff Bundschu is the sixth-generation owner of Gundlach Bundschu, a family vineyard in Sonoma that specializes in, among other things, Merlot.

**Jeff:** A good Merlot is pretty sexy, voluptuous, round, and intense, without the mouth-puckering tannins or austerity of an ageable cabernet.

**Willa:** Jeff agrees that in the 1990s a lot of Merlot on the market just wasn’t very good. When Sideways called this out, his Merlot, the high-quality stuff, got caught up in it.

**Jeff:** You’d have thought Spider-Man himself had swung in and tossed out Merlot.

**Willa:** Scores of newspapers chronicled Merlot’s troubles. Katie Couric, while hosting The Today Show, said she heard she wasn’t supposed to drink it anymore. People started coming into Jeff’s tasting room and saying they just did not drink Merlot. Pretty much every winemaker and seller has a similar anecdote. Steve Cuellar, a professor of economics at Sonoma State University, has heard plenty of them.

**Steve Cuellar:** It was literally just repeated over and over and over, tasting room after tasting room after tasting room, even to this day. I just figured, okay, let’s try to measure it. What is the effect?

**Willa:** In 2009, he co-authored a paper called The Sideways Effect: A Test for Changes in the Demand for Merlot and Pinot Noir Wines. It looked at wine sales in supermarkets in the four years after Sideways.

**Steve:** The movie was released in October 22, 2004. Prior to that, Merlot was experiencing a really strong growth rate. After that, sales really just collapsed. If we do a percentage growth rate, it literally goes from, I think, 13% growth rate before to almost 0 afterwards.

**Willa:** Steve was showing me a line graph as we were talking, and it’s the shape of a steep mountain that just abruptly flattens out.

**Steve:** When I first saw this, I’m like, holy cow, this is going to be a huge effect. At least I’ll be able to put some numbers on it and all that kind of good stuff.

**Willa:** First, he wanted to check Merlot’s sales against a control, to look at another wine to see what happened to its sales.

**Steve:** We figured, let’s choose something that isn’t mentioned in the movie. Let’s just avoid the red wine and we’ll choose Chardonnay. It’s got large sales. It should be equivalent to Merlot.

**Willa:** In fact, I think of Chardonnay as the Merlot of white wine.

**Steve:** Exactly. It is the big seller.

**Willa:** As big as Merlot was, Chardonnay was bigger. It was and is far and away the most popular wine in America. When Steve looked at the sales numbers for Chardonnay, he found something surprising. He pulled up the graph for me.

**Steve:** When you do that…

**Willa:** It looks the same. The graph of Chardonnay’s sales growth right after Sideways has the same shape as Merlot’s, a steep mountain that just abruptly tables off. After Sideways, in the sample he was looking at, Chardonnay sales had flat-lined too.

**Steve:** Which is just bizarre. This is really the gist of the paper. Yeah, Merlot did crash, but it probably wasn’t the result of the movie Sideways, because Chardonnay, which wasn’t featured anywhere in the movie, good or bad, really experienced the same crash.

**Willa:** Based on these findings, Steve feels strongly that we only think the Sideways effect is real and that there must be another explanation for what happened to Merlot, one that applies to Chardonnay too. In the decade-plus since this paper was published, Steve has asked dozens of people if they have such an explanation, and they don’t. There is a sense among wine insiders that Merlot sales were already cooling off, its low quality catching up with it. Nothing can stay trendy forever. There was no major event, no financial crash, no natural disaster, nothing of note to explain such a dramatic change except Sideways. What does Sideways have to do with Chardonnay? That’s not a rhetorical question. I think there’s an answer to it. Before we can get there, I want to turn to the next component of the Sideways effect. Let’s put a pin in Merlot and Chardonnay for now and talk about a wine that Paul Giamatti’s Miles actually likes.

**Miles:** Pinot’s a very thin-skinned grape that doesn’t like constant heat or humidity, very delicate.

**Willa:** If the first theory about Sideways is that it tanked Merlot sales, the second is that it boosted sales of Pinot Noir. Pinot, wine experts tell me, is a subtle wine that is exquisitely sensitive to the environment in which it is grown. Two Pinots from vineyards just a thousand yards apart can taste really different. This distinct expression is part of what geeks wine people out.

**Kathy Joseph:** Those of us in the wine world feel once you love Pinot Noir, you love Pinot Noir, and you explore Pinot Noir. It’s very sensual and it’s exciting and it’s delicious.

**Willa:** Kathy Joseph is the owner of Fiddlehead Cellars, a vineyard and winery in the Santa Ynez Valley. She makes a Sauvignon Blanc that was name-checked in the film, but she also makes a Pinot Noir, which she readily admits is tricky to grow.

**Kathy:** Probably more than any grape, Pinot Noir does demand a certain environment for it to excel. It needs a cool climate. It needs good drainage. It needs a place that isn’t too rich. What happens is that it’s all expensive.

**Willa:** All of this had made Pinot a kind of specialty grape in America, a fanatics grape, as someone put it to me, grown in small quantities and rarely offered by the glass. Then along came Sideways. See, Pinot Noir is Miles’s favorite wine. He gives a beautiful speech about it, in which it’s clear he’s not just describing a grape, he’s also describing himself.

**Miles:** It’s thin-skinned, temperamental, ripens early. It’s not a survivor like Cabernet, which can just grow anywhere and thrive even when it’s neglected. No, Pinot needs constant care and attention. Only if somebody really takes the time to understand Pinot’s potential can then coax it into its fullest expression. Oh, its flavors, they’re just the most haunting and brilliant and thrilling and subtle and ancient on the planet.

**Willa:** Upon hearing this ode to Pinot, Americans started buying it in droves.

**Kathy:** Absolutely. Yes, there was an uptick in immediate interest for Pinot Noir.

**Willa:** A Nielsen analysis found sales of Pinot spiked 16% in the months after the movie came out. Wine producers were caught off guard by Pinot’s overnight popularity, and there was a mad dash to plant more of it. In California, production of Pinot Noir has increased 75% in the years since. There was a lag at first, because it takes four to five years for a grapevine to bear usable fruit. There were other difficulties too, starting with the price. Tim Farrell, the wine buyer you heard from earlier, was working at a sports bar in Indianapolis in 2006 when a customer ordered a glass of Pinot.

**Tim:** I remember thinking, oh, we do have a Pinot Noir, and it’s $12 a glass. I thought, that’s insane. We have Bud Light for $2.50. Why would you ever want a $12 glass of wine?

**Willa:** Pinot grown correctly is expensive. It just takes a lot of care. After the movie came out, not only was there more demand for Pinot, there was more demand for Pinot from casual wine drinkers, the kind of folks who want an affordable Pinot. You start to see a version of what happened to Merlot happening to Pinot. Pinot is planted in places that it probably shouldn’t be and attended to less carefully, and that means less quality product makes it into bottles. Another paper, one from 2021, found that most of the frenzied Pinot plantings of the mid-2000s were in the Central Valley, the sunny, fertile, hot, strawberry-growing Central Valley that wasn’t even good for adaptable Merlot.

**Tim:** Then you have a flood of really bad Pinot Noir coming out by about 2008, 2009.

**Willa:** Even good Pinot Noir didn’t necessarily deliver what a casual wine drinker was looking for, like the person who ordered a $12 glass of Pinot at Tim Farrell’s sports bar.

**Tim:** They returned it. They said, “Oh, this is watery. I don’t like this at all.” I took it back. I didn’t know anything about wine at the time. The flavor profile and the texture and the body of Pinot Noir is not actually what people were expecting. They were Merlot drinkers, and so they were probably expecting a big, rich, full-bodied, powerful wine, and it’s exact opposite.

**Willa:** Wine producers needed to please these customers that wanted a Pinot that didn’t taste like a Pinot. Fortunately, there were a lot of other grapes around, because remember, growers hadn’t been expecting Pinot to be the next big thing.

**Tim:** The less scrupulous producers of Pinot Noir that just wanted to cheapen their production and make a more rich, smooth wine for this market that was sending watery glasses of Pinot Noir back at sports bars, was they started adding 25% Syrah to a lot of these wines.

**Willa:** Blending is a common and accepted practice in winemaking. Some of the very best French wines are blends. In America, the standards are a bit looser. You only need 75% of a wine to consist of the grape that’s named on the label. All of that extra Syrah, it made the Pinot go down easier.

**Tim:** They had to soften up and make Pinot Noir super accessible because real, unadulterated Pinot Noir, in addition to being very expensive, is not what the American consumer in 2006 really wanted. It even confused the market for what Pinot Noir should actually taste like.

**Willa:** I’m not saying Pinot Noirs all became phony baloney overnight, all got bad or all tasted like Syrah. In the long-term, the interest in Pinot probably did push American palates in a new direction. In the short-term and on the low end of the market, Pinot became a victim of its own success. While this made for a bunch of lousy Pinot, the irony is it made for better Merlot.

**Jeff:** What it did mean there for a minute, there was a ton of really good Merlot that was available for super cheap.

**Willa:** Jeff Bundschu, the Merlot maker at Gundlach Bundschu again.

**Jeff:** The red blends in the 10 years that came out after Sideways, that became red blends because no one would buy Merlot, were way effing better.

**Willa:** As you may have suspected, I know very little about wine. I’ve learned a bunch from working on this episode, but I can still barely tell when a wine has gone off. When someone asks me what I think about one, I often don’t know. I think the truth is that none of the wine tastes that good to me, but I feel like it could, if only I knew more, tasted more, tried harder, grew my palate. I honestly feel a little self-conscious about how little I know. I know this isn’t a universal feeling, but I don’t think it’s uncommon.

**Jeff:** Like you could ask somebody, “Do you like that movie? Do you like that peanut butter? Do you like that toothpaste?” They’re going to say, “I hate that movie. I love that peanut butter. I’m down with that toothpaste.” You ask them about a wine and they’re like, “I’m so sorry that I’m not a wine expert, but this kind of doesn’t taste very good to me.”

**Willa:** Why is just uniquely intimidating. I think that’s at least as important to the Sideways effect as whatever was in the script. It helps explain why a little movie that opened in four theaters could have such a big impact. People want guidance about wine, and we’ll take it from a waiter, a wine store clerk, a sommelier, a wine critic, or a movie character. Miles is a man who can barely affect change in his own life. He’s miserable, lonely, and a little insufferable. Listen to him.

**Miles:** Don’t be shy. Really get your nose right in there, really. A little citrus. Oh, there’s just the faintest soupcon of asparagus. There’s just a flutter of a nutty Edam cheese.

**Willa:** He is not at all what you picture when you close your eyes and imagine an influencer, and yet he influenced the heck out of us, even though we weren’t using that word then. His high-strung, forceful, informed opinions make him a compelling authority. His strongest views are about Merlot and Pinot Noir, but maybe thinking his influence stops there is underestimating him, the movie he’s in, and how much hand-holding people want about wine. Maybe it’s all bigger. Maybe it’s even big enough to extend to Chardonnay.

We’re going to get back to that Merlot Chardonnay mystery I pinned back there. You remember the economist Steve Cuellar published a paper that showed both Merlot and Chardonnay sales plateaued, in an admittedly small, regionally specific sample, right after Sideways came out in 2004. No one had really been able to make sense of this. Then I mentioned it to Kathy Joseph, the owner of Fiddlehead Cellars. Should I tell you what the economist said?

**Kathy:** Yes, I’m very interested.

**Willa:** Kathy pointed out that in the 1990s there had been a rise in sales of wine by the glass at restaurants, and those glasses were mostly full of Merlot and Chardonnay.

**Kathy:** The reason, in my opinion, is because of their accessibility and also how they were made. Chardonnay was a little bit sweet. Merlot could be a little bit sweet. They were just like almost a transition wine. They were easy. People didn’t order white wine any more by the glass. They ordered Chardonnay.

**Willa:** Once Kathy flagged this connection for me, I realized she was not the only person who had talked about it. It came up a lot, including with Alexander Payne.

**Alexander:** Those were the two wines ordered by people who didn’t really know much about wine. People who knew wine would start saying, “I’m ABC, anything but Chardonnay.”

**Willa:** Rex Pickett had noted it too.

**Rex:** The waiter would say, “Red or white?” If you said white, it was going to be some really cheap, probably Chardonnay. If it was red, it was going to be Merlot.

**Willa:** Here are these twinned wines. Then Sideways comes along and curses one of them out and ever so slightly shades the other.

**Jack:** I thought you hated Chardonnay.

**Miles:** No, no, no. I like all varietals. I just don’t generally like the way they manipulate Chardonnay in California.

**Willa:** Maybe what happened to Chardonnay is just a minor version of what happened to Merlot. Audiences picked up that Chardonnay was the other uncool wine, and they backed away from it. If that feels a little overdetermined to you, another way to think about it is that Sideways made it very clear to casual wine drinkers our basic choices had been noticed and found wanting, but it also made it clear there was a whole wide world of wine out there. Walking out of the movie, you could think, I’ve got to stay away from Merlot, I’ve got to drink Pinot Noir. You could also walk out thinking, huh, I should learn some more about wine.

Steve Cuellar’s graphs of Merlot and Chardonnay in the wake of Sideways show consumers cutting back, but the wine market didn’t collapse. We just started drinking something else. This is certainly how the winemakers I spoke with saw it. They thought Sideways encouraged people way more than it shamed them. Jeff Bundschu again.

**Jeff:** I think that what happened in Sideways is Miles, who I can’t believe I know of by first name basis, was like, “This Merlot sucks.” He sort of just gave voice to an entire world of people that had been choking down what they think they should have been choking down instead of standing up for saying, “I don’t care. This isn’t very good.”

**Willa:** Do you really think that people were trusting their own palate or they were just like, “We trust Miles.”

**Jeff:** I see it more as permission, but I guess that’s because I’m an optimist. Everybody is like total sheep, like a permission to hate wine that they don’t like.

**Willa:** Kathy Joseph use the exact same word, while being similarly optimistic.

**Kathy:** The movie gave people permission to explore beyond what they already were comfortable and familiar with.

**Willa:** This is based on her experiences in the years after Sideways, years in which the Santa Ynez Valley, where the movie was set, became a bustling tourist destination, when the wine market doubled and wine was diversified way beyond Merlot and Chardonnay. It all amounts to a third theory of the Sideways effect, that Sideways encouraged wine drinkers to branch out. As it turns out, there’s a speech in the movie that makes the case not for any one varietal, but for wine in general. It isn’t from Miles. It’s from Maya, the wine connoisseur and romantic interest played by Virginia Madsen.

**Maya Randall:** I like to think about all the people who tended and picked the grapes, and if it’s an old wine, how many of them must be dead by now. I like how wine continues to evolve. If I opened a bottle of wine today, it would taste different than if I’d opened it on any other day, because a bottle of wine is actually alive, and it’s constantly evolving and gaining complexity.

**Willa:** Maya isn’t relaying rules about wine. She’s praising it for always changing. There’s a contrast between her and Miles, and the movie knows it. It’s why they make a good romantic pairing.

**Maya:** It tastes so fucking good.

**Willa:** Miles’s rigidity is set off against her flexibility, his instructions off her explorations, his acidity off her balance, two ways of appreciating wine and life.
Steve Cuellar’s paper about Merlot and Chardonnay sales only covered the four years following Sideways. Chardonnay sales bounced back. It’s still the most popular wine in America. Merlot production and prices stabilized too, but it’s now often used in America as it’s used in France, as a blending grape. The overall percentage of it, compared to all the grapes crushed in the country, has fallen.

**Jim:** A few years in, our Merlot sales were down and I’m like, “Dad, we got to get out of Merlot. We got to plant something else.” He was like, “Oh, it’s going to come back, Jim. It always come back,” for a decade, two decades. When’s it coming back? When’s it coming back?

**Willa:** This brings us to the final wrinkle in this story, that Miles, the guy that destroyed Merlot’s reputation, doesn’t even hate it.

**Maya:** What gems do you have in your collection?

**Miles:** Oh.

**Willa:** About halfway through the movie, Miles tells Maya that he’s been holding on to this one really good bottle of wine.

**Miles:** I’ve got things I’m saving, definitely. I guess the star would be a 1961 Cheval Blanc.

**Maya:** You’ve got a ’61 Cheval Blanc and it’s just sitting there?

**Miles:** Yes, I do.

**Maya:** Go get it. I’m serious, hurry.

**Willa:** A ’61 Cheval Blanc costs about $4,700. He tells Maya he’d been saving it for his 10th wedding anniversary, but is now just waiting for a special occasion.

**Maya:** The day you open a 61 Cheval Blanc, that’s the special occasion.

**Willa:** In one of the final scenes, Miles finds out his ex-wife is pregnant with her new husband, and he decides to drink that wine. He takes it to a diner, orders a burger and onion rings, and drinks it out of a Styrofoam cup. As he sips it, he lets out an appreciative, “Hm.” Even in these degraded circumstances, the wine shines through.

This shining wine, this Cheval Blanc, as Alexander Payne knew, is made mostly out of Merlot. Some viewers spotted this contradiction instantly. You can read comment threads about how this makes Miles an idiot and a hypocrite. The meaning seems plainer to me. Miles really loves wine. He really knows wine. He doesn’t hate Merlot, one of wine’s essential, noble grapes. He just hates the bad version of it. This love hate thing is right at the heart of why this little movie had such unpredictable and outsized effects. It tapped into the dualities that exist in most of us, people who hate being uncool, but who also love to try new things. We’re sheeple and we don’t want to be told what to do. We’re easily led and we’re curious. We’re Miles and we’re Maya.

When I spoke to Laura Lippman, who rejected Merlot like RoboCop at the beginning of this episode, I told her about the twists and turns of this story and my sense that Miles himself would now have it in for some other trendy wine. The next time we talked, a few weeks later, she’d just gone to the wine store.

**Laura:** There was something going on where I was like, “I should get a really good bottle of red wine.” I was like, “What if I bought Merlot?”

**Willa:** She did it. She took the bottle home, made a nice dinner, and poured herself a glass.

**Laura:** I thought it was terrific, actually. I was like, “I will do this again. I will drink Merlot again.”

**John:** I am thrilled to welcome Willa Paskin, who is the host of Decoder Ring podcast and Slate’s TV critic. Willa, congrats on another great episode of your show.
**Willa:** Thank you so much. Thanks for having me, John.

**John:** Recently we’ve been doing episodes on nuclear energy and climate change, looking at how stories we tell have an impact. The idea of the Sideways effect has come up multiple times. It was just amazing kismet that your episode this last week was on the Sideways effect. How did it come to be? How did you decide to do it for an episode for your show?

**Willa:** At the beginning of every season, I scratch around for ideas. I think I had asked on Twitter if anybody had any thoughts. It had come up. I had looked into it really perfunctorily. It seemed like the answer was really obvious. It seemed like everyone was like, “Yeah, it just tanked Merlot sales,” whatever. I was like, “That’s not interesting enough.” Then, luckily, a couple of weeks later, this other tweet started going around that was a graph of what had happened to Merlot after Sideways essentially. We just started talking about it in Slate’s internal messaging system. There was a wine guy on staff. He’s Jordan Weissmann. He writes about money and economics.

**John:** I know Jordan.

**Willa:** He’s entwined. We just started side chatting. He was my wine guy basically. He has a wine guy. His wine guy, who’s a wine seller in Brooklyn, had basically talked to him a lot about Sideways. It just suddenly became very clear, just from this brief chat on Slack, that oh no, there was enough there for it to be interesting. Had it really affected Merlot? Had maybe it actually affected Pinot? Then I started talking to people, and it turned into this nice little delectable rabbit hole, which is always super fun. I ended up, in the episode, speaking to an economist who had done a study about it.

One of the things that’s interesting and funny about something like the Sideways effect is we all know what it is and everyone talks about it, but of course, it’s not actually hard science or news, and so there have not actually been… Most people who are economists or who study stuff for a living have not actually been like, “Definitely, I need to look into the Sideways effect.” There actually haven’t been that many real papers about it. When I did speak to one of the guys who had done one of the papers about it, it ended up taking me places I was not expecting.

**John:** In the episode you frame three questions, which is did a line in a movie depress Merlot sales for decades? Where do you stand, Willa? How strong do you think the Sideways effect was for what happened to Merlot?

**Willa:** I think the consensus about Merlot is twofold. One is that it did depress both Merlot sales and Merlot plantings. There was another study that just came out very recently, actually, about the long-term effect of it, but not dramatically. It affected it some. Wine, as an agricultural product, it’s interesting in the sense that it takes years to plant a grapevine and then for it to make grapes that are good enough. You just can’t act on information as quickly as you can on like, everybody wants a strawberry or everybody wants a pair of jeans. You have to wait. While you’re waiting, you’re not making any money. No one was ripping Merlot out, basically, because that’s just-

**John:** That’s suicide. It got blended into other wines, as you talked about.

**Willa:** Over time, it did not get replanted at the rate that it had. It does seem that Pinot really did get planted at a huge rate. That’s the first thing. I would say the second thing is much, much fuzzier. Just reputationally, absolutely, it really, really hurt Merlot. That doesn’t mean that it hurt it for everybody. That doesn’t mean that all consumers were suddenly paying attention to this movie. Madmen doesn’t have to be watched by that many people to have a really big footprint or to feel like it has a really big footprint. I think something like that is very similar.

**John:** I always think about Twitter, because not very many Americans are actually on Twitter, but Twitter has a huge impact on the national conversation. People didn’t need to necessarily see the movie to know that, oh, we’re not supposed to be drinking Merlot. It just had a stink to it because of the smart people who saw the movie said, “We shouldn’t be doing this.” It had an outsized impact.

**Willa:** I think similarly to Twitter, there’s tons of people that have no idea what’s happening on Twitter, are never affected by it all, but the people that are paid attention to by the media basically did.

**John:** It was a meme, basically. Don’t drink Merlot is a meme. It just got spread in a pre-internetty kind of time.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** We’ll put a link in the show notes to… The Travis Lybbert paper that you mentioned is behind a paywall, but there’s another, Journal of Wine Economics, that shows the graph of the two things. You really see how Pinot Noir just really took off. You can also see that the prices fell for Merlot, which I think is also useful to see that supply and demand… There just wasn’t demand, and so the prices for Merlot fell.

**Willa:** I would say one of the things that was interesting from talking to wine people about it is this isn’t settled. I think if they looked into these papers, it would be, but it was not. Something happened and everyone has a ton of anecdotes, but a lot of the serious people were like, “It’s not clear that that’s really true,” which I was surprised by. I was like, “Oh, isn’t it obviously true?”

**John:** These can all be future episodes of Decoder Ring down the road if you want to. Around the office we were talking about other examples of things that are like the Sideways effect, where movies had had a weird impact in the real world. I wanted to bounce them off of you and see what your instinct is for these.

**Willa:** Is your first one Clark Gable and the undershirts?

**John:** Hey, it was my third one, but yes, let’s talk about Clark Gable and the undershirt, because it happened one night. He takes off his shirt, and he was not wearing an undershirt. Apparently, men realized, oh, I don’t have to wear an undershirt underneath a dress shirt. Snopes says it’s unclear whether that’s actually a real thing or not. What’s your ruling on Clark Gable and the undershirt?

**Willa:** I would love to believe that is true. How can we have any idea? It would be hard to follow that, track that information at the time.

**John:** If you were to do an episode on that, you’d probably need to talk to fashion historians and really figure out where we were at at that time and was the undershirt going away at that point.

**Willa:** If I was doing that, there’s a couple things. There’s immediately, I think, a number of things. One is I start to think about hats. It’s similar to-

**John:** What happened to hats?

**Willa:** What happened to hats? In a way that it’s like, you were going to do a couple stories from one episode. It’s like, what happened to hats, what happened to undershirts. I could imagine undershirts being the open. Then also undershirts, which we’re not allowed to call wife-beaters anymore, but what is the semiotics of the undershirt. I think there’s probably a bunch there.

**John:** It gets complicated.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Two other things that you actually can measure. Super Size Me. We had the documentary Super Size Me. Six weeks after the movie came out, McDonald’s dropped the term super size me from everything. They stopped using the term all together. That’s an impact.

**Willa:** Can I tell you my cocktail party chatter about Super Size Me?

**John:** I want to hear this.

**Willa:** This is truly basically the only thing I remember from Super Size Me. I remember the takeaway was McDonald’s is really bad for you. There’s in passing a graphic about how one bagel is equal to eight slices of bread. It’s a picture of the bagel. It’s a drawing. Then it equals eight slices in bread. I believe in carbs. I don’t have a problem with carbs. It has haunted me. It didn’t ruin McDonald’s. It just really gave me pause about bagels forever. That was my personal impact [inaudible 00:40:40].

**John:** That was your Super Size Me. Blackfish, the documentary about SeaWorld, the stock in SeaWorld fell 50%. That’s a pretty direct cause and effect there. I want to talk about the name Madison. What is your perception of where the name Madison came from?

**Willa:** Oh my god, I have no idea. I do just perceive it as being one of those on the top 20 girls’ names now.

**John:** It came from Splash.

**Willa:** Did it?

**John:** In the movie Splash, Tom Hanks is with Darryl Hannah. “What’s your name?” She looks at a sign for Madison Avenue, and she says, “Madison.” He says, “That’s not a name.” It wasn’t a name. It was the 216th most popular name for girls in 1990, but then it became 29th, and by 2000 it became number 3. It was not a name being used.

**Willa:** It does fit in with a ton of other name trends, which is the last name for first name trend, like Hudson. There’s a lot of names that sound like that, Lawson. It’s snugly right in there, and then also it’s upscale.

**John:** It does fit in with that trend. My very first TV show, there were these twins, a boy and girl twins. I named them Mason and Finley.

**Willa:** You nailed it.

**John:** I’d never seen anyone in the real world named Mason and Finley. I called that trend. They are now popular names.

**Willa:** I’m really impressed. That reminds in Baby Mama, the kids are named Banjo and… They didn’t call it, but they just made fun of it nicely. Those are perfect. You did it.

**John:** Finley and Mason. We also talk a lot about representation and how depictions of people on screen matter in terms of how people interact with people. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, Sidney Poitier, hugely important, probably the face of a Black man on screen was helpful. Philadelphia, for just Tom Hanks playing a person with AIDS was important. We can have our faults with either of those movies, but they were important in their times. It’s always hard to remember what it was like before that movie came out.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Jaws and perceptions of sharks, perceptions of shark safety. We can’t go back to a time pre-Jaws.

**Willa:** No, we definitely can’t.

**John:** People weren’t worried about sharks. Now my daughter was scared to be in the pool because of sharks.

**Willa:** Sometimes when I’m just swimming out, I hear the song in my heart. You feel it. It’s coming for you. I think I talked about this in the episode pretty directly. A thing about Sideways that really tickled me and that I thought was really fun about this episode was we don’t imagine that someone like Miles would have an impact upon us. He just is not a poster child for that. That’s just not how things work. Sometimes it’s who you least expect. I like that. I like that it’s unpredictable in that way, because if it was just up to people who make decisions based on what you think is going to happen or what’s happened before, you’d never cast… You’d make Miles be totally different. You’d sand off his edges and you’d make him someone else.

**John:** We often talk on this podcast, what is the nature of a protagonist, what is a hero, what is a hero going through. Also, Miles feels like a sidekick character to somebody else, and yet he’s centered in this movie. He’s like a Shrek at the very center of this movie, who is grumpy and angry, and we learn to love him because he’s just center frame the whole time. One of the things that I really liked about your episode is that you bring up Maya, who is his antagonist, who’s this person who’s challenging all his beliefs and actually genuinely loves wine in a way that’s more approachable than maybe he does. She’s not strident. She’s embracing of like, let’s celebrate wine, rather than pit them against each other.

**Willa:** Totally.

**John:** Which is fun. I want to talk just a moment about some of your other episodes.

**Willa:** Please.

**John:** It’s been a One Cool Thing repeatedly on the show for me. You have a two-part episode on the Jane Fonda workout, which was a really fascinating deep dive in terms of it’s so strongly associated with her and yet she’s really taking this work that someone else has done and repackaging it. You broker a conversation between the two women.

**Willa:** That’s one of my top two episodes we ever did. It was totally not what I was expecting to happen. I basically had decided that the Jane Fonda workout itself was fascinating and that Jane Fonda’s story is fascinating, because it is. When I started looking into it, the woman who actually created the workout is named Leni Cazden. Jane Fonda had cited her in a couple places and in her biography, but also she’d thanked her at some awards show. She was findable, essentially. It wasn’t a secret. Then a lot of things just fell into place that I didn’t have anything to do with it. My timing just happened to be really good. I got to speak to both of them and then got to follow up with Leni. I just felt this delicious psychological long-term relationship just fell into my lap. That doesn’t happen that often. That was super fun. Then we basically did the episode that I had been imagining second. Then we did this other fun one that I hadn’t been expecting first.

**John:** A lot of them are just one-offs that are just great and fun. The history of Gillette razors, let’s go to five blades, then the razor wars was just weird and how we got into that and the history of razors. It feels like there’s some, not necessarily a movie, but there’s some version of that absurd way we got to it. It feels like a Soderbergh movie, where it’s just like how we got to five blades eventually.

**Willa:** Some corporate espionage. The thing that I always want is there to be an actual idea, that’s not just the idea that the show purports to be about. It’s not just the topic. With that one, with the five blades one, the big idea was just like, oh my god, capitalism is so silly. Why do we keep doing this? It’s cool, a single-blade razor actually works pretty well. It lent itself to that. I usually find those things as I’m looking into them, but that one was very clean in that way.

**John:** I want to talk to you about the making of the show, because unlike Scriptnotes, which is exactly what we’re doing, which is just a conversation between two people, and there’s an outline I’m looking at, you are fully scripting the whole thing. It’s starting with research, and then you’re doing your interviews. You’re figuring out what parts of those interviews you can use. Then you’re having to write every word you’re saying to get that right and make it all fit. What is the process for you? You’re figuring out your ideas for the season, but what are you actually doing on a daily basis to get this stuff written?

**Willa:** The process is, I’m like, okay, what sounds like a good episode? As I said earlier, I start to dig around about a subject, just Google around about it. The ones that are right, they feel like, you know when there’s things hollow, like there’s a trick door or something, it’s going to spring back at you? It actually feels that way. You’re like, “Oh, this has a little give. There’s stuff here that I wasn’t expecting.” Once it starts to feel that way, there’s just… I just have to have one idea about it or just a sense that there’s a layer.

Then I just start to report. I do a lot of research. I’m also having a lot of conversations as I’m doing it. It’s not like a one and then two. They’re together. Then ideally, I would do all the reporting. I now report a couple of episodes at once, just because it’s just a better use of time. Then I essentially sit with all the stuff that I have, all the actualities, all the research, all the audio, all the interviews, and I write from the beginning. I listen back to the tapes and stuff, to the tracks. I’m trying to get somewhere, usually. I’m trying to make a point or explain some history.

It feels really written. It feels sculpturally written in a different way. It’s pretty that. Then I just spend a bunch of time writing it, however long it takes. It always takes longer. It’s the part that still hurts, as writing anything does. Ideally, that doesn’t take more than two weeks, but it’s been to. In some ways, it’s hard to track it. Then it still takes a pretty long time, because basically it’s-

**John:** It’s all the post process. You had this plan going into it. Then you’re listening to this thing. These episodes are scored. They have ins and outs. You have to figure out breaks.

**Willa:** A hundred percent. It’s all those things, but it’s not even that. It’s almost like when you turn in a first draft to an editor, they change it. They tell you all these notes. They give you all these thoughts. Weirdly, putting it on tape is the same thing. Suddenly, you just hear all these things that are wrong with it. You hear all the places it’s paced wrong. You hear the information that’s in the wrong order. You hear the beats that aren’t quite working right. Because a show is trying to build and often is about ideas…

Just with the Sideways episode, for example, there was a third sections that’s about… It’s after Pinot. It’s after the Merlot section. It’s after the Pinot section and trying to resolve what happened with Chardonnay. I knew where it was going. I knew what the end was. All that stuff was written. There was something about the pacing that was making that pay… It just wasn’t working. On paper, it was working fine, but it’s not working fine when you actually hear it. That takes a long time. I think that takes longer than it probably should. I think it takes longer than other people’s process. There’s a lot of iterations basically. The music comes in later. The breaks are written in. It’s a lot about making sure the arc works. I have found that that is not… It’s supposed to be written to be heard. When you’re just writing it, it’s not in the form it’s supposed to be at. Something really changes there.

**John:** The closest I’ve done to this is I did a podcast called Launch, which was a six-episode series about the creation and printing and release of my book series. It was great, but it was such a different experience. I was not prepared for how much time it was going to take and also just what a different workflow it was. We hadn’t transcribed everything, all the interviews, but then we missed out on stuff. Are you transcribing everything you do from all these people or are you just taking these are the bits we need?

**Willa:** This is a thing that I don’t know what would’ve happened in the past, but we use basically an automated transcription program. A computer does it. You get them back fast. There’s use cases that I don’t have, where you would need it to be really precise. It’s pretty good actually. Because I’m listening back to it no matter what, the transcript lies, you still have to hear. It sounds like it’s great, but then you listen in, they’re talking in a monotone. You still have to listen back to it. We do transcribe everybody, but that’s because it’s not what it was.

**John:** Once you’re writing it, is this in Google Docs? What program are you using when you’re writing?

**Willa:** I was a faithful Microsoft Worder for all my writings, and I still am. Google Docs, it’s just if other people have to get into it, which obviously the producer and editors do at some point. Then also, just when the drafts were just changing so much, after you’re going through, we basically listen and we make changes and then retrack. It just became so much easier to just have it all just in this one place. You just need the link, not to email the document every time it changes.

**John:** That’s brutal. The episode we listened to, how many hours of work on your side was that?

**Willa:** I couldn’t…

**John:** Is it three weeks?

**Willa:** I work really hard.

**John:** It was a ton of work.

**Willa:** That one I will say, it was a lot of work, but in a different way. The writing of that one was the smoothest, cleanest writing experience I’ve had in a long time. I think it took me, not counting the day that I just went back through all the audio that I had… I also didn’t over-report that story, so that helps a lot. I wrote that piece in four days, which never happens. Then I got stuck with it at different stages once it was whatever. It’s almost like I’m almost sad it happened. I’ll be like, “I can do it in four days.”

**John:** [inaudible 00:52:42] “Maybe I can do it in three days.”

**Willa:** It hasn’t happened in a long time that I’d done it that fast, and it’s not going to happen again. It was nice. That one was just very structurally, very clear in my mind as I was doing it. That’s not always the case.

**John:** Willa, so many of your episodes are just incredible fodder for our segment How Would This Be A Movie. In a future How Would This Be A Movie, would you mind coming back and talking us through some of these things?

**Willa:** I would love to. Anytime.

**John:** Fantastic. Willa, thank you so much.

**Willa:** Thank you.

**John:** That is our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. You can find the show notes for this episode and all other episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. 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 Craig’s been up to. Now, let’s roll the credits for the original episode of Decoder Ring.

**Willa:** This is Decoder Ring. I’m Willa Paskin. Decoder Ring is written and produced by Willa Paskin. This episode was produced by Elizabeth Nakano. Derek John is senior supervising producer of Narrative Podcasts. Merritt Jacob is our technical director. Thank you to Jim Taylor, Jordan Weissmann, Peta Work [ph], Lo and Lou, Josh Levine and Travis Lybbert. The 2021 paper Travis co-authored called A Sideways Supply Response in California Wine Grapes also corroborates the Sideways effect, and we’ll link to it on our show page.

If you’re a fan of Decoder Ring, please sign up for Slate Plus. Slate Plus members get to listen to this show without any ads, and they’re supporting the work we do to make Decoder Ring. Members will also get to hear a special behind-the-scenes episode with me at the end of the season. Please go to slate.com/decoderplus to sign up now. I really appreciate your support. Thanks for listening. See you next week.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Craig is back. Craig has been gone for weeks and weeks and weeks. Now Megana, last week I asked you, “Hey, is anybody wondering where Craig’s been?” You are the person who’s responsible for the ask@johnaugust email account. I was wondering whether people were wondering where Craig has been.

**Megana:** Yes. We had one person who wrote in, curious about where Craig has been.

**Craig:** One person was wondering where I was.

**John:** By the time this Bonus Segment is out, I guess the news will be out. Craig, you were in space. You were the first screenwriter to fly on Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin spaceship. I guess my real first question is, what was it like to leave the bounds of Earth? What was that experience like? They always say to send a poet, but a screenwriter is the person to send.

**Craig:** Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise a kid. In fact, it’s cold as hell. Anybody? Anyone?

**John:** I don’t know what that’s from.

**Craig:** That’s Elton John’s Rocket Man. It’s a popular song.

**John:** It’s a popular song. I’ve heard it once or twice.

**Craig:** 1970-something. God, this is just one kind of sadness upon another. One person cared, and neither one of you know Rocket Man. I think it’s going to be a long, long time until touchdown brings me around again-

**John:** That I do recognize.

**Craig:** I’m not the man they think I am at home.

**John:** You were not on Mars. You were instead in night shoots. You were in night shoots for your TV show, which is just a lot. Your schedule, which was difficult, became impossible.

**Craig:** I’ve been doing pretty well, I think, all things considered, by when you go into three weeks of nights, you’re no longer on the schedule that any other normal human being is on. It’s amazing actually how fast you can get used to it. Much easier to get out of it than to get into it. I would say that much at the very least.

**John:** While you were gone, you missed some episodes. I don’t think you had a chance to listen to the episodes. I thought we’d review what we learned and get your opinions on some things. The first episode, which I really missed you for, was on nuclear issues. We had two experts on to talk about nuclear war, nuclear arms, nuclear energy. You obviously have a background in this stuff. We were looking at what the current landscape was, and of course with the war in Ukraine, the growing escalation of possibilities of nuclear war. It was not a fun episode. I wouldn’t say it was joyful.

**Craig:** No, never joyful to talk about things like nuclear weapons. I don’t really know what the point is of talking about the possibilities. Either they will or will not occur, and if they occur, we’re all dead. That’s basically the deal.

**John:** I would say going into it, I was of the mindset that because of the reduction in number of nuclear arms that are out there in the world, nuclear war wouldn’t be as bad as what we grew up expecting. It’s still terrible.

**Craig:** Oh lord, yeah. The arms race that occurred, I’m sure you guys covered this, largely in the ‘80s, between the Soviet Union and the United States, led to a situation where both nations had this absurd surplus of nuclear warheads. We don’t need that many. We know that a single large nuclear weapon can destroy most of a city. There are only so many cities. Once you start lobbing them, the destruction that occurs is dramatic not only to the people that live there. Obviously it’s fatal. Then you have long-lasting effects around it. Economies are shredded. The environment is destroyed. It’s almost impossible to imagine a situation where one nuclear weapon is intentionally fired and set off and is not followed by a retaliatory strike. Essentially, nuclear weapons are unusable or usable all at once. It’s actually amazing that we have these here and have had them for our entire lives and they haven’t been used in our lifetime.

**John:** Let’s keep it that way.

**Craig:** That would be nice. Unfortunately, we are not in charge.

**John:** Craig, are you familiar with the story of Stanislav Petrov?

**Craig:** Was he the guy who said, “I’m not going to fire that nuclear weapon.” The Soviet said, “Fire nuclear weapon,” because they had misunderstood a test, and he was like, “No, I’m not going to do that.”

**John:** Yep, it’s that guy. That was brought up as one of the potential stories that has not really been very well dramatically told. One of the things I brought up is that I think it’s sometimes really challenging to tell a story about a thing that didn’t happen. The guy who stands in the way of a bad thing happening is a little less dramatic than the guy who does the thing.

**Craig:** There’s one movie that I think does that very well is Crimson Tide, 1994’s Crimson Tide, which I think probably drew quite a bit from the Petrov incident and is very much based on that idea that a submarine receives orders to fire a nuclear weapon and then there’s another message coming in, but the radio’s damaged. They don’t get the rest of it. It might say, “Wait, actually don’t,” but they don’t know. There is essentially a debate and mutiny over whether or not they should fire those nuclear weapons. They made it very exciting. A fine Tony Scott film.

**John:** Agreed. Other episodes you missed. Episode 546 was Limited Series. We had Liz Meriwether on the show, finally…

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** …and Liz Hannah. They both recently had limited series out there. We had a talk about what that was like. You of course did a limited series for Chernobyl. One of the things I think was so key from their descriptions of why tell this story now was that feeling that in a limited series or a dramatic series versus a documentary series, you can tell that central character’s internal POV, that you just couldn’t if it’s strict documentary. They had a chance to really explore what was inside the character, rather than what just the facts were.

**Craig:** The difference between a limited… Any kind of fictionalization, doesn’t matter whether it’s a limited series or an ongoing series or a single movie, but any dramatization affords you a wildly different palette than you would have as a documentarian.

**John:** Lastly, the episode that we are going to be putting this Bonus Segment on, was about the Sideways effect. I think we’ve talked about the Sideways effect just between you and me, or maybe on the air as well. Of course, that’s the impact of the film Sideways on Merlot and Pinot Noir in America and around the world and how one character’s rant, or he rants twice, can have a measurable impact on popular culture and economics. We talked with Willa Paskin about that.

**Craig:** It’s an interesting thing. I remember seeing Sideways. I remember that happening. I didn’t know anything about wine then. I barely know anything about wine now. I know the kinds of wines I like. Interestingly, I don’t like Pinot Noir.

**John:** I’m not a fan.

**Craig:** I don’t know about you, John. I like a huge, big, red, stupid wine. I like a dumb, big Cabernet. That’s what I like.

**John:** That’s what I say too. Whenever somebody’s coming over, “What kind of things you like?” I just say, “I like a big, dumb red.” I’m not apologizing for that. It’s just actually what my taste is.

**Craig:** I like to be hit in the face with a Cabernet bat. That’s me. That’s just what I like. Am I a cretin? Probably. I don’t care. I don’t like Pinot Noir. It’s thin. It’s like it’s not really there to me. Merlot, it’s not offensive to me. I don’t mind it. It’s fine. Actually, there are some fantastic wines that use Merlot as part of their blend.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** There are some great blended red wines out there. Sideways, I don’t know. By the way, I love that movie. It’s amazing. Why was it so obsessed with Pinot Noir? I don’t know.

**John:** Basically, Willa’s argument is that Pinot Noir was really just meant to be a stand-in for the Miles character himself, and that he’s difficult, but there’s actually something good underneath the surface, and you have to really come to appreciate what it’s trying to do and take it as what it actually is. He feels like he is a Pinot Noir that people are not appreciating properly.

**Craig:** Thus an entire industry was disrupted.

**John:** It was. Now, part of the reason we got into the Sideways effect is on Episode 547 we had Quinn… You know Quinn Emmett.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** The other folks behind Good Energy were coming on to talk about how we talk about climate change in our films and TVs and how we can put messages out there that have an impact. We talk about how sometimes things really do have an impact, but in terms of representation, Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner or other films along the way have that impact in terms of showing a different way of people interacting, dramatizing situations that people may not have thought of, and certainly for LGBT representation. There’s important films along the way like Philadelphia that get people to address their prejudices.

**Craig:** I don’t know how good of a tool movies are going to be for climate change, because the thing is most people recognize that it exists, most people are concerned about it, and most people, meaning almost everyone, feels that they have no direct impact upon it, and they’re right. It’s going to take large governmental action and sweeping changes globally to prevent this situation from getting worse. I think that’s not going to happen. I think the situation will get worse. I don’t know what it is. With something like climate change, where we can see it’s there and we’re just not sure how to deal with it, it very quickly can turn into lecturing or it can be parody or satirical. We can make fun of people for being stupid and ignoring climate change.

Ultimately, I’m not sure how you’re going to do, because the problem is you don’t see the end result. Philadelphia, you see a man change. You see the way he thinks about another human being change. You see how that human being’s death changes him so that theoretically, moving forward, he will be a better person. We can identify with him because he’s Denzel Washington and he’s a great actor. That’s impossible to do with climate change, because they’re not going to see it happen.

**John:** I would debate the premise that it’s impossible for it to be done with climate change. I think it’s a question of what are you trying to do. Are you trying to make a movie that is specifically about climate change or are you trying to normalize things that you wish people would normalize in their real lives? An example would be, if you have characters who are going onto the roof of their building, are there solar panels on that roof, and normalizing that expectation. Are you seeing people do small things like take public transportation rather than be in a car? Those are some small steps. Then there are also… We’ll put a link in the show notes again to the Good Energy playbook.

There are things that don’t feel like climate stories, but of course really are climate stories. Anything about disasters have a climate element to it. One of the points they try to make is that in anything we’re doing in film or television, if you’re not addressing climate change, you’re making science fiction, because a reality of the world is climate change. To not address it is science fiction.

**Craig:** Sure, unless you’re telling a story that really doesn’t have anything to do with outside. Even if it does have something to do with outside on any given day, you’re not going to be experiencing this specific aspect of climate change. I don’t know. I don’t know about that. I love Quinn, and I get what he’s doing, and I appreciate how devoted he is to this. To me, honestly, the thing that we could do, the thing that I could do, I try to do this, is talk all the time about how positive nuclear energy is.

I feel like I have a somewhat privileged position in that regard because I made a show about a nuclear disaster. I’m saying nuclear energy is a good thing. In fact, if the United States invested heavier in nuclear energy, and I know that Quinn and I agree on this, that would matter more than anything else. That would matter more than solar panels. That would matter more than wind turbines. Just putting us back on a nuclear grid would change everything. I try and talk about that. It’s hard to put that into… Maybe I’ll have a character yammer about it in a show. I can do that, I suppose.

**John:** Talk about your show, because your show’s going to have some connection to climate change, just by necessity. There’s fewer people on this planet.

**Craig:** Climate change stops. Once we stop driving cars and pumping coal carbon into the air and burning fossil fuels like oil and gas, then climate change essentially gets reversed. I think it’s fair to say, without giving too much away, that climate change is not irrelevant to what happens. That’s as far as I’ll go.

**John:** That’s as far as you’ll go. Craig, it is wonderful to have you back on the show. Next week we’ll have you back for a full episode. Anyway, congratulations on surviving your night shoots.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** I’m looking forward to having you back on the show and back in Los Angeles before too long.

**Craig:** I’m almost home.

**John:** Cool.

Links:

* [Decoder Ring](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring) and the [Sideways Effect Episode](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2022/05/sideways-the-movie-had-lasting-effects-on-the-wine-industry-and-casual-wine-drinkers)
* [Sideways Movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375063/)
* Willa Paskin [on Slate](https://slate.com/author/willa-paskin) and [on Twitter](https://twitter.com/willapaskin)
* [A “Sideways” Supply Response in California Winegrapes](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-wine-economics/article/abs/sideways-supply-response-in-california-winegrapes/FE14CECD927047BD0582207D77F1B09E) by Travis Lybbert for the Journal of Wine Economics
* [Snopes on Clark Gable and Undershirts](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-shirt-off-his-back/) and [Madison Name from the Movie Splash](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bp/splash-joke-lead-madison-baby-name-boom-190720175.html)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/549standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 545: The Nuclear Episode, Transcript

June 3, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2022/the-nuclear-episode).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August. This is Episode 545 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’ll be discussing nuclear energy, nuclear safety, and nuclear war, both the realities and how these issues are portrayed in Hollywood. Obviously, Craig Mazin would seem to be a great person to dive into these topics, since he made a show called Chernobyl, but he is off making his new show this week. Luckily, we have two bona fide experts joining us today.

Joan Rohlfing is President and COO of Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit, nonpartisan security organization focused on reducing nuclear and biological threats imperiling humanity. NTI also produced the docu-drama Last Best Chance that premiered on HBO. She’s held senior positions in the US Department of Energy and worked as an advisor to the US Ambassador to India in the wake of nuclear tests in India and Pakistan. Earlier in her career she oversaw nuclear weapons policy and acquisition programs for the Department of Defense and the Armed Services Committee at the US House of Representatives. Joan, thank you so much for being with us.

**Joan Rohlfing:** John, thank you so much for the invitation.

**John:** Now, my first question for you, Joan, is one of the questions that always comes up as we’re trying to pitch projects in Hollywood, is why now? What is it about this particular moment that makes this story relevant to be told on a big screen or on a small screen? Can you tell us why in April 2022 we should be paying attention to nuclear issues?

**Joan:** I think we’re at a moment where the danger is extremely high. In fact, I would argue it’s one of the highest points in the history of the nuclear era, rivaled perhaps only by the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. A lot of people who think nuclear weapons went away at the end of the Cold War are now realizing with this Ukraine crisis that nuclear weapons are still around. The nuclear threat is real. We have seen a major nuclear power, Russia, do nuclear saber-rattling and make both implicit and I would say rather explicit threats of nuclear use. We’ve seen conflict around nuclear reactor facilities in Ukraine. This is a moment where we are feeling these dangers palpably. Many people are frightened. What I hope we can talk about today is not only what’s frightening about the situation, but what can we do to help prevent a nuclear catastrophe from happening.

**John:** Great. We can talk about this as our responsibilities as citizens but also as storytellers and making sure we’re telling the stories that can get people thinking about this. Often on the show we’re doing a segment called How Would This Be A Movie, where Craig and I discuss a starting point of a story that comes up in the news. I want to introduce our second guest for that news angle.

David E. Hoffman is a contributing editor to the Washington Post. He’s worked as a diplomatic correspondent and the newspaper’s bureau chief in Jerusalem and Moscow, and also assistant managing editor for foreign news. He’s the author of several books, including The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy, which won the 2010 Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. David, welcome to the show.

**David E. Hoffman:** Thanks for having me.

**John:** Now, you’ve covered these stories and probably assigned them. You’ve reported them yourself but also assigned them out to other writers. I’m curious what you think. Are these stories that are being under-reported or should be higher in the attention in the news media for us to be looking at in nuclear issues or nuclear safety?

**David:** We have a war going on, so I’d like to address nuclear weapons. I don’t know if people noticed, but just the other week, a missile fired by Russia, a cruise missile, landed within 15 kilometers of the border with Poland, a NATO nation. Had it hit inside Poland, the United States and all of NATO allies would’ve been committed to defend Poland. Meanwhile, a week or two after that, helicopters from Ukraine crossed the border into Russia and destroyed an oil depot in a place called Belgorod. When I see missiles and helicopters crossing this kind of border between East and West in the middle of a war, I am reminded that all the nuclear missiles, the intercontinental ballistic missiles of Russia and the United States are on launch-ready alert today.

People think that the Cold War’s over and we got rid of all of the hair trigger alert stuff, but those missiles, in the case of the United States, land-based missiles and submarine-based missiles, are ready to launch within minutes of the President of the United States giving an authorized order. In the case of land-based missiles, maybe 10 minutes. In the case of submarines, maybe 12 minutes.

We have this system, and I think the Russians still have it too, because during the Cold War we had a standoff. We had a cocked pistols standoff. It was called mutual assured destruction. It’s still there. It’s a recipe for mistake, for disaster, for catastrophe. We’ve never been able to remedy it. People have tried. Presidents have tried. They keep promising, we’ll set up a joint early warning, we’ll have a hotline. All of those efforts basically failed. At a time when both sides are really facing off in Ukraine, the idea that we still have the hair trigger alert, you don’t read about it in the headlines, but that’s what really worries me.

**John:** Let’s set the table for what we want to talk about on this episode. It sounds like when you talk about the escalating tensions between two nuclear powers, which seems like an old idea, it seems like the Russians were always our enemies in old movies or old TV shows and they disappeared off of that, but the conflict is hot now.

You talked about nuclear weapons, the possibilities of nuclear war, but I also want to talk about nuclear energy and safety, which those two things overlap, to a degree, because even just this past week we’re seeing stories as Russia pulled out of the Chernobyl region, the Russian soldiers, they were doing really dangerous things in that space. When you have military people interacting with nuclear areas, that’s a concern as well. We’ll try to have a conversation about the realities and the Hollywood portrayals of these things and what we need to do in terms of thinking about these portrayals in the next months and the next years going forward about nuclear issues. ‘’

Maybe let’s start with nuclear weapons and nuclear war, which is just an incredibly disappointing and frustrating thing to start with. Joan, can you give us a sense of how many nuclear weapons are in the world right now? Do we have a count? Do we have a sense of how many there are out there?

**Joan:** There are estimated to be some 13-15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, which is an excessive number of weapons when you think about the power of each individual weapon. A modern nuclear weapon is roughly 20 times the firepower of the nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That having been said, there is a positive message in here, which is that the number of weapons in the world today is just a fraction of how many we had several decades ago. The estimate is that at the high point there about 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, the majority of those held by the United States and Russia. That’s still true today. The US and Russia together have about 90% of the remaining nuclear weapons in the world. Progress has been made to bring those numbers down, but the dangers are still there, greater than ever, a lot of complexity in the system, increasing the risk of use, and more players, and some of them have growing arsenals, so a dangerous moment.

**John:** I want to talk about the players, but first let’s focus on that story of dropping from 70,000 nuclear weapons down to 13-15,000. What happened? I wasn’t aware that it had dropped so much. What changed? What were the policies? What were the programs that actually got us down that low?

**Joan:** The short answer is arms control. During the Cold War and at the height of the Cold War, the US and Russia, at the time Soviet Union, both understood that we had a mutual interest, an existential common interest in trying to limit the dangers of nuclear weapons and prevent a nuclear exchange. Even though we were adversaries and had competing systems, we worked hard and diligently to reduce numbers to put limits around our arsenals and to do that in a way that was verifiable and relatively transparent. The verification provisions that we negotiated allowed a high degree of intrusiveness and inspections and regular reporting on our arsenals. It was quite extraordinary.

Unfortunately, many of the agreements we put in place, both around nuclear weapons and limitations around our conventional stockpiles, those agreements have come apart, fallen apart. Both the US and Russia have walked away from quite a few of those agreements. It leaves us in a much more dangerous place today.

**John:** David, can you give us some sense from the Russian perspective in terms of the number of weapons that are out there in the world and the reduction, but they still have a force there. What’s your reporting, what’s your experience like with the Russian side of this?

**David:** The real reason that we are at a lower level today, as Joan said, with these negotiations… You have to understand that behind this is a story of people and a story of political will. The reason we are where we are today are two men, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. For separate reasons, they both came to the conclusion that the world was headed to an abyss, and they wanted to do something about it. When they finally had a chance to do something about it in the late 1980s, it had a big impact. When we talk often about the warheads and the numbers and the treaties and the verification, people just shouldn’t forget, these are always stories of human will and willpower.

I covered Reagan for a long time. It wasn’t until 1986 on a cold evening in Reykjavik that I realized, six years into his presidency, seven years after I started covering him, that he was a nuclear abolitionist. I think Gorbachev too kept his desires secret, because he was rising and became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He couldn’t have announced right away what his intentions were. He did some extraordinarily courageous things that were not about building. You won’t get any statues in Russia or the former Soviet Union for what he did, because a lot of what he did was to prevent things from happening. Gorbachev prevented an arms race in space, personally. When the Soviet guys, the rocket men, brought him plans to match Reagan’s Star Wars and to have a nuclear arms race in space, Gorbachev put those plans in his bottom drawer and never said another word, and it didn’t happen.

Fast-forward to today, we’re 30 years beyond the end of the Soviet Union. We had a period in Russia, about 10 years, from 1991 to 2001, of a democratic market free period. It was the longest period of freedom in 1,000 years of Russian history. It was pretty chaotic and raucous. I lived there. During that time, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton also decided that they didn’t need as many nuclear weapons. Things continued on a pretty good trajectory toward cooperation and reducing the risks. When Putin came in in 2000, handpicked by Yeltsin, he also was very, very cautious and didn’t really reveal his hand. As the time went by, in 2007 he gave a very hawkish speech, in 2011 he was faced with huge protests in Moscow, 2012. Putin gradually decided to reassert Russia’s aggressive posture toward the rest of the world. In my book in 2009 I wrote that Russia could sometimes be prickly but was not necessarily the enemy of the United States. Things have changed.

What we see now with this war in Ukraine, this war of aggression, a war without a cause, Russia has become a very, very determined adversary, and Putin is using nuclear weapons as a signal. He’s threatening them. He’s making all kinds of statements that are very worrisome. I’m not sure how he thinks about the consequences of actually using a nuclear weapon in combat, which hasn’t been used since Hiroshima. I’m very worried that this kind of bravado and theatrical signaling is going to create confusion and uncertainty. He’s been doing it. He started doing it very early in this conflict.

**John:** I want to highlight a thing you said there, because you talked about how the story of our nuclear arsenals being depleted and the decisions to back away from these things and Gorbachev or Reagan deciding they did not want to have an arms race in space, those are compelling ideas or compelling stories. It’s very hard to tell stories about things that didn’t happen. It’s hard to write about the space race that never was. We can do alternate scenarios for things like if there had been this race in space, but it’s hard for us to create popular entertainment that talks about things that did not happen. One thing we do talk about a lot though is the idea of things that could have happened or could be out there. We talk about nuclear disarmament and all these warheads being taken down.

Joan, can you tell us what actually happens when a nuclear weapon is taken offline? Is there any danger that those weapons are going to get loose, that that material is going to be out there, that warhead is going to be falling in the hands of somebody who should not have it?

**Joan:** When a weapon is dismantled, and I’ll talk about the US system, it’s broken down into its constituent components. You have metals and electronics. I would say the most important part of a nuclear weapon is the nuclear fuel, the fissile material that can produce a chain reaction and a great release of energy when the bomb is detonated. That’s a combination typically of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Those materials are really important to safeguard. When they’re withdrawn from a weapon, they need to be stored in a very high-security facility. Obviously, the material coming out of weapons needs to be secured properly.

Even aside from weapons, there are pretty significant global stockpiles of these materials. Around the world, a big part of our global effort has been ensuring that those materials are secured to the highest possible standards so that they cannot be stolen by terrorist organizations to be put together again in a weapon form and detonated in a city around the world.

**John:** As recently as a year ago, when the word nuclear was brought up in terms of weapons, the concern was proliferation. The concern was that other nations around the world would have their own nuclear weapons. They were concerned about Iran. They were concerned about North Korea. Where are we at now with proliferation? Do we know how many nations have nuclear weapons? You say that 90% are probably still controlled by the US and Russia, but where are the rest of those weapons?

**Joan:** There are nine nuclear weapons states today. We continue to worry that other states may join the ranks in terms of the nine. In addition to the United States in Russia, you have the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and although Israel does not publicly acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons, it is believed to have nuclear weapons. Those comprise the current nuclear weapon states, as all of us who read the news understand. We’re very worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons. They already know how to make the fissile material. We’ve heard states say, for example, Saudi Arabia, that if Iran becomes nuclear, they will also acquire nuclear weapons. We could imagine a cascade within the Middle East.

We have to worry about other countries in the future as well. There are other states that have the capacity to build nuclear weapons, they have the scientific know-how to build nuclear weapons. Some of them already have the capabilities to make the materials. What we do have are treaties that provide a pretty good set of brakes to further proliferation, but the political will to maintain those treaties needs to be maintained. That’s really essential. There are stories of hope though. Let me just offer that–

**John:** Please.

**Joan:** While there’s all this material in the world, highly enriched uranium and plutonium, we’re doing a better job of trying to quantify where it is, the quantities that exist around the world. In the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there was an agreement struck for many of the weapons that were being dismantled in Russia in particular to take some of the highly enriched uranium out of those weapons and convert it into a non-weapons usable form, a lower form of enrichment, which was sold to the United States to be used and burned in our power plants, so producing energy, a wonderful Swords to Plowshares story that was called the Megatons to Megawatts Program. We know how to do a lot of things that dramatically reduce the risk.

I also wanted to just pick up on David’s comment earlier about how important people are to the process of disarmament. He mentioned Reagan and Gorbachev and Putin giving very different examples of behavior. I would say the public at large plays an important role here. Public pressure played a role in President Reagan’s understanding. There was political pressure created around nuclear weapons. There was a palpable understanding of the nuclear threat at that time. We’re coming up on a 40-year anniversary in a couple of months of one of the largest anti-nuclear protests ever, certainly in the United States. About a million people gathered in Central Park to protest nuclear weapons. It’s hard to imagine today that kind of gathering, because nuclear weapons have so fallen off of the public’s radar screen.

I would say one of the very large storylines about nuclear weapons is frankly how undemocratic they are. When you look at the small number of states in the world that have weapons, vast majority of states have signed a treaty to never develop nuclear weapons in exchange for extracting a promise from the nuclear weapon states that they would eventually give up their nuclear weapons. That’s a 50-year-old treaty that’s under a lot of pressure right now.

The other way in which it’s undemocratic is we see the authority to use these weapons vested in a very small numbers of hands around the world. I’m really struck by, with the current crisis in Ukraine, the power of a single individual, in this case Putin, to use his nuclear weapons as a shield for absolutely egregious, illegal, aggressive, destructive behavior. If that’s not undemocratic, I don’t know what is.

**John:** David, I want to keep talking about the people involved in these stories, because I think as we’re looking forward to how we tell stories in this space, we adapt characters we can focus on. We say Gorbachev and Reagan, but who are the characters we might be looking at now who are going to be involved in this situation? Can you give us a sense of what a journalist working in this space would be doing and how they would be able to report on this when so much stuff would have to be top secret? Do you have a sense of what the roles of people working inside the government, the US government, or through other agencies would be doing to try to stop proliferation to intervene and keep a nuclear war from breaking out? Who are some of the people that you think are interesting for us to be following in this situation, the kinds of people?

**David:** John, before I answer that, I just want to go back to something about Gorbachev. I don’t think that it’s easy to just say nothing happened. I think that Gorbachev’s story is immensely important and is a hell of a drama. How does a guy rise in a dictatorship? How does he become the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, keeping his ambitions to himself about wanting to end the Cold War and the arms race? It was an amazing struggle. He really saw the horrible weaknesses of the system and thought, I have to change it. He said, “We can’t go on living like this.” I haven’t seen that yet brought, that bravery and courage inside, not an open society, but a closed one. I haven’t seen anybody do that yet. I think it’s pretty amazing.

I would point out to you that there is a way to make stories out of things that don’t happen. Take just a look at Project Sapphire, which was this incredible effort by the United States to airlift a large amount of highly enriched uranium out of Kazakhstan. Uranium could’ve laid around there. The Iranians were sniffing around. They were hoping maybe to get that fissile material to build a bomb. Very, very bright and small group of Americans figured it out, flew some C-5As into there, loaded that stuff onto the planes, and they flew the longest flight in the history of a C-5A carrying highly enriched uranium back to the United States, so that it couldn’t be grabbed by Iran. I think that that storyline, Project Sapphire, that amazing secret operation, yeah, something didn’t happen. The Iranians didn’t get it, but it still was pretty amazing.

In all the cases of arms racing, it’s to me just as incredible to see an arms race in reverse or going downhill, people trying to stop this braking locomotive as it is to see the actual threat of things getting worse. I think we’re actually in a situation like that now. We see now the Chinese are very actively building silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit the United States or anyplace else in the world, hundreds of these silos. What are they thinking? They had 100 or 200 missiles. Now they seem to be aiming for more than 300. They had a system before where they did not use the hair trigger alert of the United States and Russia and now they’re edging more toward putting missiles on alert. What are we thinking?

If we now have three of our powers all racing to build a hypersonic glide vehicle that can evade the fences and be maneuverable at very low altitudes at high speeds, carrying a nuclear warhead, I don’t think we should take for granted the idea that all arms racing going forward is great. We ought to think about how to we break these things, how do we reverse the course. As drama too, I think actually being up against the machine is a pretty good narrative arc.

**John:** Let’s talk about then who the characters are, who would be up against this machine, and who would be breaking the progress of us going towards more nuclear conflict. Talk to me about a journalist who was investigating this. How challenging is it to report in this space?

**David:** It’s actually amazingly become easier. Certainly when I was the White House correspondent in the 1980s covering Reagan, almost everything was secret. We had to do a lot of what we called access journalism, meaning building up sources and getting people to leak stuff to us.

Now flash forward to today. This thing, for example, that I just mentioned about the Chinese building these silos, how did that become public? Two different, very smart experts in two separate organizations, not working for the government, use commercially available satellite imagery to discover these missile fields being built in China. They wrote reports and made it public. Open-source intelligence has become a very powerful tool in spawning dangers and warning us of trends. That kind of tool didn’t exist in the Cold War, but even people using their phones to spot military equipment rolling through Ukraine, the use of satellites is really advanced to the point where essentially people not in government can deploy intrusive measures of satellite photography to see what’s going on on the ground and alert us to what’s really happening.

**Joan:** John, can I build on that? David is absolutely right in highlighting people on the outside of the system. You were asking earlier about who are the people inside of the government who are going to save us from unclear wear, and a caveat here, I have the highest respect for colleagues in the government. I spend a good part of my career in the government. These are good people doing very hard jobs.

That being said, one of the reasons we have this spring-loaded, incredibly dangerous system in place, the one David was describing, with large numbers of forces on high alert, that there are many ways in which the system can fail and we could end up in a nuclear war, and worse yet, blundering into a nuclear war accidentally that nobody intended. There’s a really important question that we should all be asking ourselves, which is, why is it, after 75-plus years since the advent of nuclear weapons and some 60-plus years since we developed this operating system called nuclear deterrence. Three years since the end of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, why do we still have this really dangerous system in place? What is holding it in place? I think we need to look at the bureaucratic inertia and the vested interests, both financial and political, and power interests vested in the existing system.

I think there’s a really interesting story that can be told about people on the outside who are trying to disrupt those vested interests in order to enable the system to adapt to meet today’s threats and keep us safe from nuclear use, from a nuclear catastrophe. There are definitely stories about the people doing work to expose nuclear proliferation in other parts the world. There are people who are trying to build public pressure to bring about a different result. There are also brave voices who are working inside of the system, who are trying to push the change agenda. I think there are historical examples of that too, where people stood up and defied authority to prevent a launch from happening. The

he Soviet Union at the time, there are two Russian officers who are described as saviors of mankind during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a really interesting story about a guy named Vasili Arkhipov, who was on a Soviet submarine around Cuba and basically stood in the way of a launch order by the captain of the ship. By the way, that was turned into a movie that flipped roles called Crimson Tide.

**John:** I was going to ask if that was Crimson Tide.

**Joan:** Yeah, that was Crimson Tide, only Crimson Tide was obviously abut an American crew, same story. Another Russian officer, Stanislav Petrov, who prevented launch essentially when Russians had some faulty early warnings suggesting there were incoming US missiles. He was able to recognize that that was a mistake, an error of the system, and basically prevented that information from getting relayed up the chain where someone would take action on it. There are fascinating internal stories, but I think we should also be looking at stories in and around the system, at people willing to challenge it.

**John:** You brought up Crimson Tide. I want to do a quick segment on our portrayals of nuclear war in our movies and what’s realistic and what has changed in 2022 versus these movies from the ’80s and ’90s. I definitely grew up on the Day After Tomorrow, Terminator 2. We had this vision of oblivion basically in the event of a nuclear war. Joan, what would the reality of a nuclear war between the US and Russia look like now? Is it world-ending? What happens?

**Joan:** I’m sorry to report, it hasn’t changed since the time you and I were growing up. It would be absolutely catastrophic. If there was an exchange of weapons at any kind of scale, given the size of our arsenals, where we each have more than 1,000 incredibly powerful nuclear weapons deployed, it would be catastrophic not just for our countries, but for the globe, because we know that there are secondary effects.

For example, the potential for something called nuclear winter. All of the soot that would be lofted up into the atmosphere would create a darkening of the skies for a projected period of time. Some people have estimated up to a decade. It would affect agriculture and the ability to grow crops. It would cool the climate. We would expect to see mass starvation as a result of that prolonged global cooling.

One thing we don’t fully understand, because nobody has yet done the research to really study the impacts on critical infrastructures, power infrastructures, banking, health infrastructures, how would all those things… For example, if we lost power, and you might imagine that if there’s a major attack that we would lose power and then all of the systems that require power for their operation would cascade to failure. How can we imagine that we have any kind of governmental integrity in the face of that, where people are starving, where there’s no power, there’s no heat, there’s no water?

Not to sound too dire, but I actually think nuclear war is as bad as it’s ever been depicted in the worst of films from decades ago. What we’re missing, I would say though, in the filmmaking, that I think is really important, is a film that can give people some understanding that it doesn’t have to be this way. Many people are just despairing because they understand and are very frightened by nuclear threats, but they don’t see a way out. It would be great if we could begin to portray a world where we’ve somehow crossed the Rubicon to a safer set of practices for controlling nuclear technology that does not threaten the future of humanity.

**John:** David, in the reporting on Ukraine, I’ve seen the term tactical nuke brought up a lot. Can you talk to us about the idea of a tactical nuke and the difference from what we think about with nuclear weapons, intercontinental weapons?

**David:** An intercontinental ballistic missile flies across the oceans in 30 minutes. It’s a big rock. It goes into outer space, so there’s no air resistance. It can move 20 times the speed of sound and hit the target on the other side of the world in literally half an hour. Those were the weapons that terrified us in the Cold War. Also, the Cold War was partly a standoff in Europe. In Europe, both sides created smaller essentially battlefield nuclear weapons. We’re not talking about flying through space but flying through the atmosphere. There were even nuclear weapons that could be launched in an artillery piece, although it was called the Davy Crockett. It was a large recoiling rifle that would just shoot the nuclear bomb maybe a mile or two. It had a nickname. It was called an IQ test in a tube, because the chances that the soldiers that fired that thing would experience the blow-back of blast and radiation were pretty great.

It was never used, but the idea being that if the Soviet Bloc invaded NATO with a huge conventional advantage, which they had, the West would have to resort maybe to nuclear weapons to hold it off. It was a doctrine called flexible response. This kind of potential conflict caused both sides to create small nuclear weapons, bombs, artillery pieces, and so, for the European theater. When the Cold War ended, the United States withdrew a bunch of those tactical nuclear weapons. We left 100 in 5 bases in Europe. The Soviet Union and then Russia took its weapons, which were far greater in number, there are about 2,000 of them, and moved them to warehouses inside Russia where they are today. The concern about these weapons is that in some ways because they don’t involve that globe-spanning, terrifying ICBM, that it might be easier to use them on a battlefield or that they might tempt an angry leader who has been backed into a corner, with no recourse to use them.

Also, there’s been progress, if you could call it that, there’s been change in the way these nuclear weapons are engineered. The Russians and the United States have now created smaller nuclear weapons that are smaller in terms of yield. In other words the actual explosion is smaller, so that there are small weapons that would take out half an airfield with a nuclear bomb. The concern about this is that, is there really a way to do anything in a nuclear weapons explosion that’s small? How long could you expect the battle to go on if one side used even the smallest nuclear weapon? I think the ladder of escalation is just absolutely horribly rapid, and that there’s no time to think about the size. For that matter, if you’re on the receiving end of one of those two, for example, one side or the other started to roll tactical nuclear weapons into an active battlefield, do you think the other side would think, oh, no problem, they’re just little small tactical weapons? Of course not.

Unfortunately, the United States has also given in a little bit to this. The Trump administration built a lower-yield nuclear warhead, trying to match something that Russia had done. It’s arms arcing. I think it’s dangerous. Even more dangerous, there’s talk now about putting this lower-yield warhead on a cruise missile which flies under radar, which can be used for surprise attack, a naval cruise missile could be put on a boat somewhere, and just like those cruise missiles that hit Lviv in Ukraine a couple weeks ago, just 15 kilometers from the Polish border, you could put a nuclear warhead on one of those. I think we’re entering territory that is dangerous and worrisome. When it comes to nuclear warheads, they’re small, they’re big, they’re all very, very dangerous.

**John:** Now Joan, up until this Ukraine confrontation, we had wars between major powers. Instead, last 15, 20 years have all been about the concern of terrorists. One of the things that kept coming up was the idea of a dirty bomb. You don’t need actually a bomb that explodes in a nuclear way, but a bomb that has nuclear material in it that could be incredibly dangerous and poisonous to people around it. Where are we at now with dirty bombs? I don’t see that being reported in the news anymore. Have we just forgotten about it? Was it not really a huge worry? Tell us about dirty bombs.

**Joan:** It was and is a worry. Let me explain that when we talk about nuclear terrorism, there are two kinds of nuclear terrorism, at least two kinds, and I think we just discovered a third kind with the threats to the nuclear reactor facilities. There is a so-called dirty bomb. You’re right. You described it accurately. It’s basically conventional explosive wrapped around radioactive material. It does not produce a nuclear yield. There’s no mushroom cloud. There’s just a distribution of radioactive material. Depending on what kind of radioactive material one uses, it can have a pretty enormous economic impact if you were to detonate one in the heart of a city somewhere. It’s unlikely to kill any more people than the conventional explosive itself could, but it could render multi-square-block area uninhabitable due to the radiation for an extremely long period of time. It’d be very expensive to clean up and remediate.

We also still worry about nuclear terrorism using a real nuclear bomb, one that does produce nuclear yield, even if it’s a smaller yield, as opposed to highly sophisticated bomb from a major power. It could still devastate instead of a several-square-block area, an entire city. We have a model of what that looks like in looking at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because I think it’s possible for a well-resourced terrorist group, and we know terrorist groups have said they’re trying to acquire nuclear capability, if they get the nuclear materials, the plutonium or highly enriched uranium, if they steal them, acquire them illicitly somehow, you have to worry about them putting together a crude nuclear device.

Nuclear terrorism is still very real. It’s something we’re going to have to worry about indefinitely. This is not a threat that we say, okay, we’re done, it’s gone away. It requires us to put in place and maintain indefinitely a really strong system of nuclear security around the facilities that have the capacity to make that material or that store that material. That’s true of any kind of radiation device that a dirty bomb could be crafted of as well.

**John:** Joan, you brought up the concern about terrorism around nuclear facilities. Obviously, this last week we saw that as Russians pulled out of the Chernobyl region, Russians were not being careful in that place. They were digging trenches and doing things they should not have been doing. It raised a concern about how vulnerable are nuclear power plants and to what degree do we need to be worrying about them in times of wars and also not in times of war, because so often we see nuclear power in our film and TV. We’re seeing Chernobyl. We’re seeing Silkwood. We’re seeing stories of things going horribly wrong.

Maybe we can segue into talking about what is the state of nuclear energy right now around the world, because I know I used to live in France, and France largely uses nuclear power and seems to do so quite successfully, yet in the rest of the world we’re trying to get rid of nuclear power plants. What is the state right now of nuclear energy around the world?

**Joan:** Nuclear energy around the world on balance is growing. It’s considered to be a key component in combatting climate change because it’s carbon-free energy. You rightly mentioned some states have decided to get out of that business. Japan obviously retrenched pretty significantly in terms of its draw on nuclear power. China is significantly growing its nuclear power. France many decades ago took a decision that it doesn’t have a lot of indigenous assets for energy production, and so they decided to embark pretty significantly. About 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear power. We do have these examples with Chernobyl, a pretty catastrophic disaster. That was really a safety incident. The world learned a lot about how to build reactors that are much, much safer. The kind of accident that happened at Chernobyl could not happen today. A lot of structures have been put in place.

What we’re seeing in real time, however, is a new set of challenges. We’re in uncharted territory here. It’s the first time we’ve ever experienced nuclear power plants in a conflict zone. That’s presenting some real challenges. We don’t yet globally have norms in place, certainly not norms that the combatant Russia is willing to live by in terms of not physically assaulting the facilities, making sure that the operators can operate the facility unimpeded, that continuous power supply which is critical for maintaining the cooling system for the reactor itself, as well as for the spent fuel ponds where used nuclear fuel is stored and needs to be kept cool so that it won’t burn and create a radioactive fire.

I just want to give credit to, and this would be an interesting story, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the UN watchdog responsible for overseeing the peaceful applications of nuclear power. He went to Ukraine the week before last, in order to try and negotiate some norms around those facilities, a set of basic common sense, what Russian troops should and should not be doing around nuclear power plants.

I would argue that all of Europe, including Russia, has an interest in preventing a catastrophic accident at a nuclear power plant. As I imagine, there has got to be a breakdown in the command system, because it’s completely irrational, the behaviors we’ve been seeing around the power plants. I think the jury is still out on the extent to which Russian troops themselves may have been irradiated at significant levels while they were occupying the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. We heard reports of soldiers with radiation sickness, acute radiation sickness, potentially even one death. Let’s see what we learn in coming days and weeks about that.

**John:** David, as we wrap up here, the Ukraine crisis and Russia’s invasion also has a nuclear energy component to it as well, because of course Germany is relying on energy from Russia, and at the same time Germany is closing down its own nuclear reactors, its own nuclear power plants. How do you see the story of nuclear energy being affected by the crisis of energy policy we’re going to be having over the next couple of years?

**David:** I’m not an expert on this, John, but I think you can just do the simple math that if Europe has to wean itself off of Russian oil and gas, it’s going to need substitutions. The transition to sustainable energy takes time. People are looking very hard at how quickly to get to sustainable energy, but it’s not going to happen, so nuclear’s going to have to fill part of that gap.

**John:** Joan, because you’re an expert here, I can ask you, is nuclear fusion always 10 years away? I would love nuclear fusion. Can you get it to us a little sooner?

**Joan:** I’m not an expert on nuclear fusion. I’m an expert on nuclear weapons, less so power. With that having been said, so with that caveat, I do know a number of people who are engaged with the fusion community and they believe we’re getting much closer and that there’s a shot at it in the relatively near future. No, it is not always going to be 10 years away. That is the good news.

**John:** That’s great. I want to thank both of you for both the information, but also helping us highlight some stories along the way. Some things I wrote down here, Project Sapphire feels like it’s an obvious choice for an adaptation. A Gorbachev biopic or a Gorbachev miniseries that’s focusing on that moment or how he rises as a hero within the system to challenge the bureaucracy and challenge the expectations of what Russia should be doing next. Vasili Alapov, what’s the name of the–

**Joan:** Archipov.

**John:** Archipov. That’s the one that’s not the Crimson Tide situation, but a different–

**Joan:** He is the Crimson Tide.

**John:** He’s Crimson Tide.

**Joan:** The other gentleman is Stanislav Petrov.

**David:** You can read about Petrov in The Dead Hand. It’s the opening of the book.

**John:** Fantastic. We’ll put a link in the show notes to your book so we can see that. The other thing you were really emphasizing, both of you, is that the stories that we tell about this, we think about them as centering on the people in power and the decisions they’re making, but so often it’s the people who are doing the investigation, doing the reporting, doing the activism to stop bad things from happening or to move us to a better place may be the more interesting stories for us to be following. As we look to try to tell stories in nuclear space over the next couple years, we don’t have to just focus on the people who are sitting in positions of power. It’s often the people who are not in power who are the most interesting to follow.

**David:** Go find Jeffrey Lewis and Hans Kristensen, two guys in non-governmental organizations who exposed these Chinese missile fields. That’d be a great example.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Joan:** Agree with that. Go take a look at Beatrice Fihn, who won the Nobel Prize for helping to bring about the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons through her work with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

**John:** I love it. This is the time in the show where we do a One Cool Thing where we make some recommendation for our listeners about something they need to check out. Do either of you have a recommendation for something you would like them to be looking at?

**Joan:** Thanks for the questions. Atomic Veterans. There’s a filmmaker who’s done some interesting, very short videos with Atomic Veterans. Last name is Knibbe. He’s a Dutch filmmaker. A lot of people don’t realize this, but we tested nuclear weapons on thousands and thousands of human subjects who were soldiers right after the second World War ended. This gentleman, Morgan Knibbe has been really actively trying to interview the remaining survivors who were subjects of those tests, both in Great Britain and the United States. Some of the documentary work is just riveting. When you listen to these now-old men talk about these experiences, they are so vivid. It gives you a sense of the power of these weapons.

**John:** Fantastic. David, do you have a recommendation for our listeners?

**David:** John, I mentioned the story potential of one man up against the system. I’ve got a new book out in eight weeks. The title is Give Me Liberty. It’s about one man up against a dictatorship. He paid with his life for it. My suggestion is totally self-serving. Take a look at my new book, Give Me Liberty. It’s about a dissident in Cuba who fought Fidel Castro, fought him with no weapons, just pen and paper and an old wheezing Xerox machine. He got 35,000 Cubans to stand behind him and sign a petition for democracy against Castro’s dictatorship.

**John:** That sounds great. My One Cool Thing is, just to stick on the nuclear theme, is a couple years ago I got the chance to visit Hiroshima, which I’d always seen portrayed as being this bombed-out wreckage of a place. Then you go to visit Hiroshima, it’s actually beautiful. I was there over spring break. Cherry blossoms everywhere. It is remarkable combination of a vibrant city that has at its center this park that really shows what happened in the bombing. The museum behind it is fantastic. It both lets you not forget how horrifying the results are of a nuclear attack, but also it gives hope for the ability to rebuild after it. If you’re in Japan anyway and you’re wondering, “Should we go to Hiroshima? Is it going to be depressing?” It’s not going to be depressing. It’s going to be inspiring. I encourage anyone who has the opportunity to go visit Hiroshima.

David and Joan, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I want to thank Hollywood Health and Society for putting this today. This is our third collaboration. You can go back and listen to Episode 412 on addiction and mental health and Episode 440 on incarceration.

Scriptnotes is produced, as always, by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli, who also did our outro this week. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I’m @johnaugust. Joan and David, are you on Twitter? Are you reachable by social medias or not?

**Joan:** @joanrohlfing.

**John:** Fantastic.

**David:** I’m @thedeadhandbook.

**John:** That’s great. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find links to thinks we talked about. You’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. 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 Megana and I are about to record about behind the scenes of the last two weeks, am I getting COVID or getting over COVID. I’m fine. Everything turned out fine. Joan and David, thank you so much for joining us. It’s absolutely a pleasure to get to talk with some experts on these subjects. Thank you so much for being with us.

**David:** Thanks.

**Joan:** Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

**John:** Megana, I’m back talking with you. I’m no longer prerecorded. This is back happening live. We just finished recording the nuclear episode, which was not fun, but enlightening, and hopefully helpful.

**Megana Rao:** Yeah, terrifying.

**John:** I liked that they had specific examples of like, these are stories that have not been told that someone could tell. That’s great. We always like How Would This Be A Movies, How Would This Be A Series, and it looks like there’s some really good options there.

**Megana:** Yeah, super useful to hear from the expert side of things versus just the writer interpreting that information.

**John:** While I was gone, I got to listen to you and Craig talk about 20 questions in the longest episode of Scriptnotes I think that’s ever been recorded. It was so long. I’m not actually finished with it. I haven’t gotten to the Bonus Segment where you and Craig discuss and solve all generational issues. I’m looking forward to that. I have it saved for me.

**Megana:** Oh gosh, I think the Bonus Segment itself is 30 minutes and the raw audio of what we recorded is 2 and a half hours.

**John:** Oh my gosh.

**Megana:** I know. I got in a lot of trouble with Bo for that.

**John:** Bo of course is the person who controls Craig’s calendar and schedule, and so therefore you took two and a half hours out of his HBO show to talk about Scriptnotes stuff.

**Megana:** Oh god, now HBO’s going to hate me too.

**John:** You’re on the do not hire list for HBO. Absolutely do not hire her.

**Megana:** When I approached Bo, I was like, “Oh, I need less than an hour. This is going to be so quick.”

**John:** Oh, no.

**Megana:** Then in passing, because her birthday was the next week, I was talking to her on her birthday, and I was like, “Yeah, I have to cut 45 minutes out of this 2-and-a-half-hour episode.” She was like, “What are you talking about? You told me that that was going to be 45 minutes max.” I was like, “Oh, god.”

**John:** One of the things I’m always struck by when I hear Craig talking if I’m not part of the conversation is that Craig really does talk in complete sentences. I’m looking forward to the transcripts for it, because I feel like you could actually just take his answers to things and it would feel like he just wrote them. He actually speaks very much the way other people write.

**Megana:** I think that that’s true. He has really fully formed thoughts right out of the gate, and it’s so impressive.

**John:** Yeah, because he didn’t prepare at all.

**Megana:** Absolutely not.

**John:** He had no sense of what those questions were before you asked those questions.

**Megana:** I didn’t even think he knew that you weren’t going to be there. He just entered the Zoom in his —

**John:** He thinks he’s on this episode. He has no idea that we recorded an episode about nuclear stuff. One of the things that we talked about in the episode was this guy who was talking about whether to drop out of film school. He was having some success. He was like, “Should I stick around for the next two years of film school or should I not?” It was interesting hearing you and Craig have different opinions on this. Even before you said sunk cost fallacy, I was shouting to no one, “Sunk cost fallacy!” because that’s what it really felt like to me is that you’ve gone through this much of your higher education, why would you stop and leave it unfinished there. I totally understand the notion of finishing a thing. Yet I was on Team Craig where I would say, at least for now I think it’s time to step away and pursue this writing career that looks like it’s kind of started.

**Megana:** I’m surprised to hear you say that. I wonder if finishing this degree is going to be helpful to Please Help Me Drop Out of Film School make connections and have some sort of credibility. I don’t really know. Once people are passing your script around, nobody’s looking at your transcript or your resume. It’s a relationship-based industry where they’re like, “I vouch for this guy,” and because your friend vouches for this person, you’re going to read that script. In order to make those connections and get people to take you seriously, I wonder if having the completed degree helps.

**John:** I don’t honestly think it does much, because that person who has a finished film degree, certainly what I learned in the Stark Program at USC was tremendously valuable. The actual degree I got has not been valuable, because no one’s ever asked to see it. I would have those same relationships with my classmates if I’d finished or not finished, to some degree, not entirely. Going through an extra two years with those classmates would’ve been great and I would’ve definitely learned some things, but I don’t think the actual degree is useful in a way that a lottery is necessarily useful in an architecture degree, where you have to actually prove that you know how to do this thing. No employer is ever going to ask for that degree.

I think there’s a pride aspect of it though too is that the pride in finishing a thing can feel great. Making your parents proud, that they can see, “Oh, my son got this degree,” would be great. The compromised solution that you and Craig arrived at is maybe take a gap, take some time off, and be able to go back to it, if that’s possible. That makes sense to me.

**Megana:** We had some interesting follow-up that an added cost to taking time off and going back is that you do lose the momentum, you lose the routine, you lose living close to a college campus. I thought that that was an interesting thing to also take into mind, into that equation. I had another question I wanted to ask you.

**John:** Please.

**Megana:** Someone wrote in and asked, this big win that Please Convince Me To Drop Out of Film School was hanging their hat on was that when the script was sent to Paramount, Paramount had said that they wanted to recommend it to their team. What does that feedback mean to you? I didn’t think that that was necessarily as big of a win as this listener seemed to think it was, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

**John:** It sounds like he got good coverage or got a recommend from somebody at Paramount, which is great. It’s not nothing, but it’s not a lot. It’s not going to be a guaranteed next step. I think the most you can hope out of that is that they’re going to want to take a meeting with you, which is again another good step, but isn’t a guarantee of any success. Still, take those little wins when they come. It is good news. It’s encouraging that people are reading stuff that you’re writing and liking it to the degree they want other people around them to like it. The folks who have been in your job before you, who have all gone to have writing careers, a common thread I’ve noticed is when their stuff gets passed around without them knowing it’s getting passed around, that’s when things are starting to sizzle and that things are getting started there. Please Convince Me doesn’t sound like he’s quite there yet, but maybe he’s going to get there. Be happy for what you have there.

**Megana:** My other worry is that he’s getting all of this information from this director who has a vested interest in selling a certain narrative to the writer versus an agent who you would expect to act in your best interest or something.

**John:** That’s absolutely true. The gatekeeper function there of that director is worth noting. I would also say that if this guy does decide to drop out of film school, it shouldn’t mean that he should stop all networking and all other ways of meeting people. This might be a good opportunity then to take that improv class, join that other group, find some other writers, get in a couple different writing groups. Just make sure that you are still actively doing all the other things if film school is not where you’re spending most of your time and your money, so making sure you’re still out there doing the other kinds of things that help you learn about the job you’re trying to do.

**Megana:** If you, John August, were what, 21, just graduated from Drake, what would your next steps be in the industry?

**John:** I would’ve moved to Los Angeles, just because that’s where the center of things is. LA’s a city I always want to live in. It’s much easier to move when you’re 21 than it is when you’re 25 or when you’re 29. I would’ve moved here. I probably still would’ve applied to film school, because I just didn’t know anything coming into this business. Again, 21-year-old me now with the internet would be much better connected. I would listen to all of Scriptnotes. I would’ve had a better sense of what Craig and whoever the equivalent of me would be, the alternate reality John.

**Megana:** Alternate reality, yeah.

**John:** I would’ve moved here. I would’ve gotten started. I would’ve taken the improv classes. I would’ve taken some writing classes just to be with other writers. I would’ve been doing all those things and getting a job that was interesting but not so overwhelmingly active that I still would have time to write. I think that’s what that theoretical John August would be doing.

The idea of coming out of undergrad is particularly relevant, because I was just on a college tour. As you know, Mike and Amy and I went to do a college tour of the East Coast. We got to see college towns. We started in Montreal, went to Boston. Then the plan was to go on to see Ann Arbor and Chicago and other places. Of course, as you know, I promptly got COVID, whole family got COVID, and so we ended up spending nine days in a hotel room in Boston getting over COVID, which sucked, but was not deadly, was not dangerous, because vaccines, thank god. It all sorted out okay, but definitely got me thinking about Boston as a college town. You went to college there. Man, what a great place to go to school.

**Megana:** I know. It’s the perfect place to live when you are that age and going to college and you’re just surrounded by all of these other young people or academics. It’s just a really invigorating, thrilling place to be.

**John:** While we’re in our quarantining, we watched The Social Network, which is a movie I generally love, which is also, of course, set in Boston. It was weird to see that movie now and watch it with my daughter watching it and her eyes on how she perceives Facebook, how she perceives these characters. She said afterwards, “I’ve never been so non-consensually mansplained to by a movie.”

**Megana:** That’s amazing.

**John:** Then I wanted to talk to her about the history of Aaron Sorkin. She’s like, “No, you’re mansplaining right now.” There was no stopping it. As a man, you cannot say anything, because it will actually be mansplaining to explain why he has a history of mansplaining in his films and TV shows.

**Megana:** Oh my god, as someone who was a teenage daughter at some point, I know that it was very difficult for my parents during that period, but it seems particularly difficult to raise a Gen Z teenage daughter. Oh my gosh. I would just be canceled all of the time.

**John:** We’re always on eggshells. That’s what we’re going to do. Megana, thank you for holding down the fort while I was gone.

**Megana:** Of course. Glad to have you back.

**John:** Just for our listeners, should know going forward, Craig’s availability is really tight because of the show he’s shooting right now, so we’re not sure which episodes he’s going to be with us for the next couple weeks, but we’ll still have Scriptnotes and we’ll find a way to make it enjoyable and entertaining and do some different things while we figure this all out. Thanks.

**Megana:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Joan Rohlfing and the Nuclear Threat Initiative](https://www.nti.org/about/people/joan-rohlfing/) and on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JoanRohlfing)
* [David E. Hoffman](https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-e-hoffman/) and his [books, including Pulitzer winner The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and its Dangerous Legacy](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/81268/the-dead-hand-by-david–e-hoffman/)
* [Dall-E-2](https://openai.com/dall-e-2/)
* [MidJourney](https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/midjourney-ai-art-tool?s=r)
* [Atomic Veterans](https://www.naav.com/)
* Book [Give Me Liberty by David E. Hoffman](https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Give-Me-Liberty/David-E-Hoffman/9781982191191)
* [Reykjavík summit of 1986 between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Reykjavik-summit-of-1986)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/545standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 546: Limited Series, Transcript

June 1, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 546 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’re looking at the genre/form of limited series based on actual events with two of the writer/creators behind recent critically acclaimed shows.

Elizabeth Meriwether is the creator and showrunner of the limited series The Dropout. She began her career as a playwright in New York before transitioning to television where she created seven seasons of the amazing hit comedy New Girl. Her other credits include No Strings Attached, Bless This Mess, and Single Parents. Elizabeth Meriwether, Liz Meriwether, it is a damn pleasure to finally have you on the show after 546 episodes. I can’t believe it took this long. Hi.

Elizabeth Meriwether: Hi. That was a great interaction. Hello.

John: Thank you. You’re a little bit sick as we’re talking to you. Thank you very much for being with us. I’m sorry. It sucks being sick.

Meriwether: Much like Elizabeth Holmes, my voice is a little deeper, which is exciting.

John: Absolutely, but not a deliberate choice. You didn’t stand in front of the mirror practicing to get your voice to this pitch.

Meriwether: No, she says in quotation marks. Just kidding.

John: Our next guest is no stranger to this show. Liz Hannah is the executive producer and co-creator of Hulu’s limited series The Girl from Plainville. She also executive produced and wrote for The Dropout. Her other credits include The Post, Long Shot, All the Right Places, and Mindhunter. Liz Hannah, welcome back to Scriptnotes.

Liz Hannah: Thanks for having me. Hey, everybody.

John: It’s so good to have the two of you here. We have two guests named Liz, which will not get at all confusing.

Hannah: You could just go by last names. It’s the easiest.

John: I was going to say.

Meriwether: We were in a writers room together, and we had a third Liz, Liz Heldens, who’s incredible. We would just all call each other by our last names, so I’m probably going to be Meriwether and she’s probably going to be Hannah for today’s podcast.

John: Hannah versus Meriwether does feel like some sort of big title fight.

Hannah: We were also talking about Elizabeth Holmes. It was a very odd eight months of our lives.

John: For the rest of the show it’s Hannah and Meriwether.

Hannah: There you go.

John: You can call me August or John.

Hannah: Great.

John: Whatever you want to do. One of our recurring segments on this show, which I love and listeners like a lot too is How Would This Be a Movie, where we take a look at stories that are in the news and figure out how they could become movies or really basically limited series. You guys just both did. You both took things that were in the news and turned them into high-quality film and entertainment.

I want to obviously focus on your two shows, but also at the end I want to go through some other topics of things that are in the news right now and spitball ideas in terms of how you would adapt these into limited series down the road, if they were appealing to be adapted. I’ll bring up that one of the topics we proposed as a potential one, one of our guests said, “Could we not do that one? I’m actually looking at getting the rights right now.” That is how close to the source we’re getting to on these. We’ll get into that.

In our bonus topic for Premium members, let’s talk about showrunning and producing while pregnant, because that’s something you both had experience with, because Hannah very recently had a baby.

Hannah: He’s here. He’s very fresh.

John: I love it.

Hannah: He also has some fresh attitude that will maybe be chiming in. We’ll see.

John: That’s great. Rachel Bloom, when she was on this show, she was breastfeeding. We’re normalizing maternal things happening while-

Hannah: Look, we all have feelings. He has a lot of them right now and has to talk about them.

John: He’s got to express himself.

Hannah: Doesn’t know what hands are, so the only thing he can do is scream.

John: I love it. Let’s talk about this moment we’re in right now with limited series that are based on actual events, because there’s so many on TV right now. We have your two shows. We have The Dropout, The Girl from Plainville, but we also have We Crashed, The Thing About Pam, Super Pumped, Inventing Anna, Pam and Tommy, The Tinder Swindler. This is a moment where a lot of these things are happening. I want to start with your two shows. Maybe we’ll start with The Dropout. Miss Meriwether, how did The Dropout come to be? What was the first thing? Was this something you pursued? Did they come to you? What was the origin story The Dropout, the story of Elizabeth Holmes?

Meriwether: I was finishing New Girl, and Searchlight contacted me, because they had optioned the podcast The Dropout, which is incredible and anyone who’s interested in the story should listen to it. They had Kate McKinnon already attached, and it was already set up at Hulu. They were just like, “We have everything in place. We just need a writer.” Just a little thing.

John: A small thing.

Meriwether: I do feel like Searchlight, this was their first television show. I think they are coming at it with more of like the movie thing, of like, we just need to write. It’s like, no, welcome to television. I read Nick Bilton’s Vanity Fair article. There was a really big article. Vanity Fair with Theranos was falling apart. I’d read it, I think a couple of years before Searchlight contacted me, and I loved the story. I just hadn’t done anything with it. I was familiar with the story. By the time they contacted me, I just had that feeling like, there’s been a documentary, there’s been a book, there’s been a lot of reporting about it. I think at that point there were some companies in Silicon Valley that had Elizabeth Holmes Fridays or whatever. Didn’t we find that out, Hannah, that they had been dressing up like [inaudible 00:05:20]?

Hannah: When we were in the room, I was in Austin for something, and it was Halloween. I saw three Elizabeth Holmeses walk in. This was before the show. I think I texted you guys. I was like, “What goes next? Everybody already dresses like her.”

Meriwether: This story was definitely in the news. I had that question that I’m sure you had too, Hannah, which was just like why does this need to be dramatized, why does this need to be a limited series. I think the answer I came up with was that I felt like it hadn’t been told from her point of view. Her interior world hadn’t been explored. I thought it would add to the story. The only people who can do that are writers. It’s not the job of journalists to picture themselves in somebody’s shoes. I felt like that would really add to the story. I went in for the meeting. As I was talking about it in the meeting, I just got more and more animated. I just found myself getting really emotionally involved in the actual meeting. I had that out-of-body experience where I was like, “I really want this [inaudible 00:06:32] care about this story,” which is never good in the meeting.

Hannah: To realize it?

Meriwether: Yeah.

John: You’re talking yourself into it.

Meriwether: Then you’re like, “I’m not going to be able to walk away from this.” Then Liz Hannah hired Liz Heldens, incredible drama writers, because I had no drama experience, and really knew that I needed help in that way. Then we wrote it. We were supposed to start shooting March 2020. Then COVID happened, and we lost our director and Kate McKinnon, and then spent a year trying to put it all back together again.

John: I definitely want to focus on the writing of this, because I’m so curious what your process was going into it, because you’d run shows before where you’re cranking out 20 episodes, 24 episodes in a year. This is such a different beast. Before we get to the writing of it, I’m curious what the origin story was for The Girl from Plainville. This is again based on a real story of a young woman is accused of leading a man, another teenager, into suicide. What was the start of this? Was there a book? Was there an article? Who came to who with the idea of doing this?

Hannah: There was an article called The Girl from Plainville by Jesse Barron in Esquire. I had not read it. I’d heard about it. I’d obviously heard of the case, but really in a peripheral way, I think in maybe how we all knew it, which was I knew it happened. I knew less about that than I knew about Elizabeth Holmes upon being approached to do The Dropout. I hadn’t listened to the Dropout podcast but knew it existed and knew more about her, at least in the zeitgeist, than I did about Michelle Carter. The article existed, and then there was the documentary, I Love You, Now Die by Erin Lee Carr, that was on HBO. Universal had optioned the article.

Patrick McManus, my co-creator and co-showrunner, was attached to do it, but really wanted a partner on it, and didn’t feel that he could or wanted to tell the story all by himself. Elle Fanning was considering doing it. I had worked with Elle previously. We’d been looking for things to do again together. They brought it to me. I was like, “Hard pass.” We were still in the room on The Dropout I think when they approached. I was like, “What kind of… “ The similar approach was just like why do this, what is there to add to the story, but also I was like, “I just spent a long time unpacking the interior life of a quite complicated woman who everyone hates. I don’t know if I want to dive into that again.”

I didn’t read the article until Elle wouldn’t take no for an answer, and neither would Brittany Kahan Ward, who’s my manager and our producing partner. I read the article, and the thing that really struck me was, similar to Elizabeth Holmes, which there’s so much more to this girl to unpack, and also that I really felt like she had been depicted in a very salacious way in the media that maybe undercut some of the larger conversations to be had about the case itself and about the relationship itself, and I think very dismissively talked about suicide, rather than having a larger conversation about mental health and the toxicity of this relationship and the toxicity of technology and all of these things. It felt very of now to tell that story. This was in December 2019. Patrick and I sat down and tried the pilot. We were going to take it out, and then the pandemic happened.

The thing that I couldn’t relate to in the show was how you could be so consumed by your phone. I’m consumed by social media, but I don’t have a relationship with my phone, because I didn’t grow up with it. It’s a different experience to just not have been 12 and have an iPhone or a Twitter account, and to not necessarily understand the connection that you can have with somebody that’s so distanced between that. Black Mirror and then the pandemic happened, and every relationship I had was with everybody over a phone. It became very timely in a weird way.

That was really where it started, and very similar to why I was interested in doing The Dropout, which frankly was because Meriwether was doing it. I was like, there’s a why now aspect which I think is interesting, but there’s also a voice aspect, which I think Meriwether is one of the best writers I know. I wanted to work with her and hear that. That was really exciting. I think when you decide to do one of these things, it’s what we’ve been talking about, unless it’s going to be additive, then it just feels like we’re putting another thing on television. There’s enough.

John: From the start, did you guys know how many episodes this series was going to be. Meriwether, did you know that this was going to be x number of shows?

Meriwether: Isn’t this funny, because Hannah knows all the answers to these questions?

John: If your voice fails, Hannah can fill in.

Hannah: This one’s a really funny one.

Meriwether: First of all, I was terrified of drama, and I was terrified of drama-linked stories and drama-linked scripts. I was like, “Six, six, it’s definitely six,” which felt like the shortest amount that you could do. I was also like, “I don’t know how much the audience is going to want to engage with this story.” Then we started researching it and working on it and interviewing people, and it just kept getting bigger and bigger. It just became clear that six wasn’t going to be enough. For a long time it was seven or eight. It was either going to be seven or eight.

Hannah: Unless you’d asked Dan LeFranc, who still wants 10 episodes.

Meriwether: He’s still working on two more. Even after the writers room ended, Hulu was still like, “By the way… ” They were incredibly patient with me, but it was up to a point where they were like, “We need to know. We’re making a budget. We need to know if this is seven or eight episodes.” I finally was just like, “Eight,” because I needed them to budget in case it needed to be eight. I think what I was so afraid of was that the eighth episode was going to feel like it was just wrapping up. I think what was tricky about The Dropout story was that in my mind at least, and I think people who are familiar with the story, and anybody who’s seen All the President’s Men, that first article comes out and you’re like, “That’s the end of the story.” The more I was reading about what happened afterwards, I realized the article didn’t actually stop Theranos, that it was a mix of the article and just this federal agency.

Hannah: Bureaucracy.

Meriwether: Yeah, it’s bureaucracy. Then in the room, in the writers room, they talked a lot about wanting to end at Burning Man, which was always the dream, that we were going to end it with her and Billy at Burning Man.

Hannah: There was an acid trip in there at one point. There was a lot.

Meriwether: Hannah, we’ve never talked about this, but I credit [inaudible 00:13:35] for stopping the Burning Man dream, because what had been Burning Man turned into one woman getting into an Uber.

Hannah: It is actually amazing, the whole process that takes place in a short amount of time. There was an acid trip and there was a burning down of something. It’s the burning down of the building thing.

Meriwether: Who knows? What about you? Did you know what the amount of episodes was, Hannah? How did that work?

Hannah: I think we always knew it was eight. I don’t know, it felt like not 10 and not 6. That felt like a nice, round number.

John: Was that a creative decision or was that like, this is economically viable to do 8 episodes, whereas 6 is too few for us to pay out, and 10 is-

Hannah: It’s a bit of both. Six is really hard to convince a studio to do. They just don’t make money back when it’s six, for a sundry of reasons. I think you could maybe get away with seven if you were like, “Creatively it doesn’t make sense for us to have an eighth,” and you made a real case for it. In all frankness, I think there’s a bit of extension that happens in Plainville for the eighth episode, but at the same time we also knew that we wanted to give Conrad a full day, his last day as an entire episode, and give him his moment. Knowing that then backed us into the eight. We definitely never were like, “There’s more to the story after that.” Dan also wasn’t in the Plainville room. I’m sure had he been, we would still be talking about parts 9 and 10 of Plainville.

Meriwether: It was so foreign to me just as somebody who had spent eight years being told everything I had to do, and to the point where I think it was the first season when we were really a hit. After you plan a whole season, getting a call towards the end that’s like, “You need to put two more episodes on the air,” it’s… I almost felt like I had too much freedom, where I was just like, “How many episodes do you want this to be?” I’m like, “What? What is this alternate universe where I get to decide things?” I put off the decision for as long as I could.

Hannah: Length was also a weird thing for me. I know we did this in the room for Dropout 2 is… The page length, they were like, “If it has a five in front of it, that’s maybe a problem.” They wouldn’t push back on it. I don’t know if you had a similar experience, but in post it was like, we have the amount of minutes it had to be for international sales, and that was it. It was like, as long as it hits this, which I think for us was 42 minutes. Our episode length could really be anywhere from 42 to 60 minutes and could even go over if it needed to. We don’t, but we could’ve. We had that conversation. That was really weird and interesting to have this… There’s no handcuffs. If this is a 40-minute episode, then it’s a 40-minute episode. Do whatever is creatively right for it.

Meriwether: I strong-armed them. I am not good without limits. I was like, “Just tell me what is the best time for episodes to be.” They finally gave in and were like, “51, 52.” Then I went into post with that. This was so foreign to me. I was used to hitting 21:35 no matter what, and to the point where you’re like… We called it ball shaving. I don’t know if we should put-

John: That’s awesome.

Meriwether: To the point where I was in with the editor taking frames out of… It was so bizarre to me to have that kind of freedom.

John: Before you get to the ball shaving and the final post of it all, you have to write these episodes. Let’s talk about the writing of the two shows, because from what you’re describing it doesn’t sound like what I expected, because Hannah, I assumed you came in after there was a pilot and after there was an order, but it sounds like you were earlier than that. Hannah, let’s start with Girl From Plainville which I think might be a little bit more normal. You’re at Universal. They said, “We want you to do the show.” Then they’re going to take it to Hulu. Did you guys write a pilot episode first before you wrote everything else? Talk to me about that pilot? What other documents did you write at the same time?

Hannah: We wrote a pilot and a pitch document, and that was it. We also made the article. Erin Lee Carr was on as consulting producer on the show. We had Erin and Jesse there for anything. The pilot that we wrote, and then that was how we sold the show, aside from removing some scenes, is pretty close to what’s on the air. There’s not a lot that changed.

Meriwether: It’s so good, by the way.

Hannah: Thank you. There’s a writing motif, I was just telling somebody about this earlier, that we had in the show. I don’t know that we need past, present, fantasy, text fantasy, and then this other thing on top of it. That’s no longer in there. Other than that, it was that. We sold it to Hulu. It was the same partner as I’d worked with on The Dropout. Then we opened the room and it was pretty straightforward. We had a 20-week room. We wrote six out of eight in the room. Then I wrote seven, and then Patrick and I wrote eight. We had outlines I think for… We knew what eight was always going to be. We had that done and then we just had to write it, which we did about four days before we went into production.

John: Universal’s hiring you guys to write this pilot. You guys are writing this document and this pitch document before you’re going out to pitching it to the Hulus and the other potential distributors for it. What is the pitch document like for this? What’s in that? How long is it? Is it a keynote? Is it a pdf? What is a pitch document?

Hannah: The greatest thing that ever happened was that I didn’t have to drive to Santa Monica four times randomly over the course of two weeks, because it was all on Zoom. I don’t know that I’ll ever go back to pitching in person. It was glorious, because also, guess what. Little pages, document right up on my screen, you can’t see it and I can’t see you. I can just read, and it’s great. I can ad lib and do my little shtick. It was great. That was it.

The document was why we had come to the show. It was a synopsis of the pilot, because generally no one reads the pilot until they hear the pitch. Then they’re like, “Oh, maybe.” Then they read it. You remember when you read in the pilot, that you didn’t read, that these things happened. Then it was like a here’s what the show will be. We went into it with what are the ways that people will pass on this show. We knew putting the texting out there was a way to pass, because it’s the thing we’ve all been trying to figure out how to do for the last 20 years is put texting on screen and not make it just subtitles or just I’m reading my phone and seeing texting. Patrick in our very first meeting had pitched me the idea of their last conversation being in person. Then we took that and ran with it through the whole show of having these texting reenactments of them being in the same place together. That was in the pitch. Then we had the fantasies, the Glee fantasies in the pitch. They were not musical numbers yet, but they did have those.

John: This document, you’re saying it’s a pdf. Is it just text or do you have images to show-

Hannah: Just text. It’s interesting. I don’t do a visual component to pitching. I’ll either become too obsessive about it or I [inaudible 00:21:03] myself and then I don’t write the actual document. I’m like, “Look at all the pretty pictures.” I know people that do it. My husband is a writer/producer and he uses a visual component in his pitches, and it’s really effective. As the audience for his practice pitches, I find it very effective.

I do it with directing sometimes, because I think that’s a much more… You’re trying to be specific about your vision for this. We did a visual component when we did our final pitch-out of the season before we went into production and our production plan. That was when Lisa Cholodenko and Fred Elmes had come on, and so they had said how we were going to aesthetically deal with some of these things. It’s just words. Then at the end we were like, “Elle Fanning will star on it, so you should buy it.” That was about it.

John: You should buy it. Absolutely. Star of one of your other big series. Meriwether, for you, it was already set up at Hulu. You had a star. You had Kate McKinnon attached. It sounds like you actually brought in writers to help you from the start. Is that correct?

Meriwether: Yeah, it was really bizarre, also having now sold my next project as a limited series. I did it in a more traditional way. I’m realizing how strange The Dropout was. I came in and they were just anxious to get going. I had a conversation with Hulu. It was the classic Hollywood thing where they don’t tell you it’s a pitch. They don’t tell you it’s-

Hannah: It’s a meeting. It’s just a meeting. There’s no pressure.

Meriwether: No pressure. It’s a meeting. You would think I would know at this point. I had notes on my computer. I’d actually had an idea for what the structure was going to be, so I pitched them the loose structure of what the episodes were. Then we just got a room together and we started working on it. I think before the room began, I wrote out some document. I don’t remember what it was, but I think it was an overview of what the series was going to be and what each episode roughly was going to be. At that point I thought it was six episodes. It wasn’t the most accurate thing.

Hannah: The pilot was pretty… It was there.

Meriwether: I’d outlined it, right?

Hannah: Yeah, you had outlined the pilot. Then there was a few pages of what each episode then was going to be. A lot of how we would break that show in particular was by years, because so much time had passed. It was like this episode is between X and X years or X and X month, and then here’s everything that happens in that, and that’s what we’ll address. Then going into the room, it was like the weaning of that and finding where each story was.

Meriwether: We had that overview. I was used to getting into the breaking. Then we realized that we had to do so much research. We had to become engineers and chemists and talk to a bunch of people. The crazy thing was what I was simultaneously… Because they were in a hurry to get it out, joke was on them, ultimately. I was simultaneously running an ABC sitcom called Bless This Mess that was about a young couple on a farm. I had the two rooms going at the same time.

Hannah: We were on different sides of an office. It was one side of windows, and then the other side of windows.

John: Who gets Meriwether’s attention at this moment, and you’re trying pitch [inaudible 00:24:40]

Meriwether: I was running back and… It was the most strange reality of walking into one room and having conversations about chickens and-

Hannah: Microfluidity.

Meriwether: Chicken comedy. The call sheet for Bless This Mess would sometimes be four goats. It’s having those conversations, and then going into The Dropout room,we’re having very serious conversations about sexual assault and microfluidics and a lot of things.

John: These were actual rooms. This is also a difference, because this was pre-pandemic. You were literally together with bodies around a table figuring out this stuff and looking at the same whiteboard experience, which is not norm anymore. That’s all changed.

Meriwether: I think we had an awkward mixer, where it was the Bless This Mess writers mixer.

Hannah: Yeah, we had a lunch. It was kind of like step-kids meeting for the first time. It was very strange. Isn’t Cheaper By the Dozen about that? I think that was based on that lunch. We didn’t have that for Plainville.

John: Let’s talk about the difference between the Plainville room and this room.

Hannah: Do we have to?

John: The Plainville room, you had a pilot already, so you were hiring writers to come in to help you out on that. Everyone could look at the same master plan, like, “This is the pilot. This is the show we’re trying to make.” Then what was the process of figuring out from there how to break out this information across these episodes? Had you done this before?

Hannah: I hadn’t showrun before, no.

John: What was your approach?

Hannah: Fear, terror, a sense of humor about myself. “Yes, but” is what I would say about the pilot, because we had the pilot written, but the pilot is extremely different than the rest of the show, because it doesn’t… Conrad is not introduced, his timeline is not introduced until Episode 2, and the prosecution doesn’t begin until Episode 3, or the real investigation doesn’t begin until Episode 3. The pilot we had, and we had that for a total touchstone and pacing, but we were looking for writers. Patrick was about to go do Dr. Death. He had just wrapped the writers room for that around the time we had done The Dropout. There were a few writers on that that I met with and really loved and wanted to bring on. There was a continuity to it, particularly because Patrick was going into production on Death five or six weeks into the room.

The big thing for me about all the writers that came in was I wanted writers that didn’t want to write a true crime story. I wanted writers who didn’t have an interest in just being a straightforward true crime story. I wanted them to come in and do different things, which was similar to The Dropout, if not the same. I don’t think any of us had any interest. I don’t think anybody had really done true crime except sort of me with Mindhunter, but that doesn’t really count. There were a lot of playwrights in the room. Heldens, who’s the best, she’s the best of the Lizzes, had done network dramas for a long time.

Meriwether: Friday Night Lights.

Hannah: Friday Night Lights. We had talked about that, because we were obsessed with Friday Night Lights. I think I played it cool for two days and then was like, “Can we just talk about Friday Night Lights?” We all approached it from a very different way. Then Heldens would be like, “This is how a show is written.” We were like, “Copy.”

That was the approach that I took to Plainville was just having a bunch of interesting brains, not necessarily brains that were experienced in writing this material. We knew similarly with the structure, like what we were talking about before, we knew that the final episode was going to be… I actually think we thought the penultimate episode was going to be Coco’s last day, and then ultimately as we got into the breaking realized it was going to be the last episode. Then we had the spine of the investigation and the trial and things like that.

I would say the biggest obstacle we had is that nobody was interested in the trial, because we were like, “We’ve seen it.” It was similar with Elizabeth, where at a certain point we’re like, “We’ve reached this place where everybody knows her. How do you make it interesting? Everybody’s seen this part from documentaries.” I would say the trial and the breaking of that was by far the most difficult part of the process because we were hamstrung into making it. You have to tell the facts and you have to tell the story that I think is fascinating, of how did this girl convicted off of something she said, that we don’t know if she said, based off a text message to another friend. It’s a very flimsy thing to be convicted on. That was fascinating to me. We’ve also seen trials before, so how do you make it interesting?

John: Now Meriwether, for something like New Girl, you are breaking story, you’re writing an episode, you’re shooting an episode, you are posting an episode all at the same time. How different was it going from that to this where you went into production with these scripts written? It felt like you were doing one thing at a time.

Meriwether: Is that what you think happened?

John: Were there things that you would do differently based on what you learned through this?

Meriwether: Yeah. I learned an important thing, which is that I can’t run two shows at the same time. I certainly can’t-

John: I don’t understand how someone could.

Meriwether: A show on network that’s airing at the same time that I’m running another show, because the way you described my job on New Girl was my job on Bless This Mess 2. We were shooting, editing, and writing, and then I was also running this other thing. At a certain point I think I just couldn’t. I couldn’t anymore. It was too hard. I really am in awe of those showrunners that can do that. It was an important step for me to realize that I can’t. I’ll never put myself in that situation again.

John: I couldn’t do what you did on New Girl, where you’re running a show that’s filming right now.

Meriwether: I couldn’t do it either.

John: You did it for seven seasons, by the way. You did it for seven seasons, so I think-

Meriwether: I had a lot of help. It’s very hard. It’s not conducive to great television.

John: Or good life or happiness.

Hannah: It’s not conducive to life.

Meriwether: I didn’t have kids when I was on New Girl. I spent nights at the office. It was my entire life. It consumed my whole life. It’s just not a good way to work. I was so happy with all of the IATSE stories. I do feel like a lot of the way that television gets made needs to adjust a little bit.

John: Was this experience on The Dropout better in that way in terms of doing one thing at a time? What were the pros and what were the cons? I’ve definitely heard a lot of the cons, which was that sometimes the writing process was so divorced, by months or by a year, from the production process, that people end up being dragged across… A producer, in your case, could be still producing a show that they wrote a year ago, and they’re not getting paid any more money and they’re actually being pushed down towards scale levels of pay, because they’re still producing this thing, or the original writers can’t be involved with the actual production, because they’re now on three shows after this. Those are the cons.

Meriwether: The writers room on Dropout, I was doing a bunch of things at the same time, but we weren’t shooting it. That was different. I think the system hurts the younger writers the most, because I feel like working on New Girl was this amazing crash course for a lot of people, including myself, on television production. I think it’s so important and so great to see an episode from start to finish, and even if it gets rewritten a million times, but to be able to go to the table or hear what the notes are, hear how the genre handles the notes, go to set, all those things are invaluable. It’s honestly in a job that doesn’t have really a school that you can go to to figure out. It made me sad that the writers on The Dropout weren’t involved in the production at all. I was texting Hannah screenshots of the monitor. I was like, “This is your episode.” I really didn’t like that way of working. I felt like that was strange.

Hannah: COVID on top of it. At least for us, we couldn’t bring our writers to set. Even if you can, because now it’s just so rare to have the writer who wrote the episode cover the episode or even be a part of it. Even pre-COVID, I agree, it’s just not a typical thing anymore.

Meriwether: I felt guilty, because I was like, “You’re not being paid anymore. I can’t ask you to be on set.” It’s just crazy.

Hannah: When it’s disconnected like that, you’re still not in the writers room. It’s like [inaudible 00:33:32] what’s the incentive to do it, other than the learning experience? I think it’s really important for everyone to, if they can, just go visit for a couple days and be on set and observe and be a part of it. Because of COVID, we couldn’t do that for any of our writers. We couldn’t do it for any of our support staff, because we were on lockdown for… I think Dropout wrapped before us, because we started prep in June, and we wrapped in the middle of December. We were really fortunate to bridge both Delta and Omicron.

Meriwether: Oh my gosh.

Hannah: We were PCR testing every single day until two weeks after Thanksgiving. Then we were PCR testing three days a week. Then we got hit by Omicron two days before we wrapped. I turned to Dan Minahan, the director, and I was like, “Dan, I have to leave. I have to leave here, so you have to finish this episode of television before 2022. We have to finish it.” He was like, “There’s no one left to do the show.” I was like, “I don’t care. It’ll be you and me.” I agree. It’s a real bummer that writers… Being a writer in television is 30% of the job. Being a writer as a showrunner is 15% of the job. There’s so much more to it. If you’re not exposed to it, you have no idea.

Meriwether: I will say the pro for me was after the room was finished, and because we had COVID, and I had a year to sit with the scripts. It was the first time in my life. I guess when I was writing for theater I had the same time. That part of it was incredible. I just could sit with the scripts and think. I had nothing else to do. I just got to write. What a gift. That’s great. I think once we started production…

When you’re making network television, you’re getting constant feedback, and sometimes it’s great to incorporate that into the show, and sometimes it can be destructive, because you’re chasing numbers, or you read a tweet and then you change a whole storyline. I think when you’re making network television, you have to protect yourself a little bit of that. I was scared because I was like, “We’re not seeing anything. I’m not seeing anything. I don’t have any feedback. I don’t have any audience. I just have to keep going down this road.” That part of it was a little unnerving too. This is a very long answer to your question. I think for me it was a lot of pros and cons, in interesting ways. I feel like I learned a lot from doing it.

John: Let’s wrap up this pros and cons with our fantasy world, because you’re both people who have successfully run these limited series now. If you could set it up in your dream way, what would you do differently or how would it work? Is there a way to get those writers on the set? Is there a way to make sure that we can actually have that sort of apprenticeship that you learned, the good thing about New Girl? Is there any stuff that you can bring through to this process? Hannah, from features, is there stuff that we could be doing to make these even better?

Hannah: I’m laughing just because I’m like, I really just wanted more time and money and not having to-

John: A unique thing, yes.

Hannah: The COVID situation was really detrimental I think to everybody, and obviously everybody in the world, but I think to filmmaking and to television it was really detrimental. There was just so much that was impacted creatively in the show that that was really a bummer, and that bums me out. More time and money, please.

John: More time and money.

Hannah: I take it.

John: No COVID.

Hannah: I take it here. Thank you.

John: Structurally, is there a way to make the experience of doing these shows better for writers and ultimately [inaudible 00:37:11] creative project at the end? I’m just thinking ahead. If people who are setting up these shows now, what kinds of things could they ask for that would make it a better process for them as showrunners but also for their staff?

Hannah: I would just say I do think it has to do with money, which is making it part of your budget that you’re bringing the writer to set. I also think it’s a part of talking about how we make these shows, which is… Meriwether, you do this, and I know some other showrunners that do this, but not a lot of people do this. You talk about the showrunner, you don’t talk about the room, and normalizing the fact that television is not made by one singular person, that it’s a group of people that make it.

It’s similar to talking about being rewritten in features. When you’re rewritten in features, the first time it happens to you, you’re like, “What? This never happened. How is this happening?” Then you talk to a feature writer and you’re like, “Oh no, this happens in every single script. It will happen to you for the rest of your career. It does not matter how big you are, how little you are. It will happen forever. You have to just have conversations about it. There’s a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. We’ve talked about that before, if you’re the rewriter reaching out to the person you’re rewriting, however it is. I think that having a larger conversation of, this episode was written by this person, and this is the person who came up with this… There’s enough credit to go around. The only way that I think networks and studios will find it important to bring those people to set and empower them is if we empower them. We’re like, “We can’t do this without them. They know this.”

I was really fortunate to bring my number two in the room, Ashley Michael Hoban, to set because I was like, “I’ve never run a show before.” Patrick’s, it was in post on Death, I think, and then it was airing. I’m not doing this by myself. That’s a really quick way for me to lose my mind and for this to be a terrible show. Hoban was there the entire run of the show and covered set. It was amazing. I literally would not have survived without her, and the show would’ve not been good without her. I just think that took just convincing. I just think there’s enough credit to go around that we should just be like, “These are the people who need to be here to make it better.” You hire 9,000 PAs, because we can’t do these things ourselves. It’s not dissimilar to, we need writers around to make this better.

John: Let’s talk about the writer’s responsibility on the set, because I’m sure it varies from project to project. Liz, you were covering set sometimes, but you also had someone else helping you there, Liz Hannah. Meriwether, were you on set for the whole thing? What were your responsibilities on a day of shooting?

Meriwether: For your listeners who are going to hear the bonus content, I’ve just recently given birth. I know that I gave birth on April 10th, which is my son’s birthday, and we started shooting in June. I had an infant and also COVID. I was on a feed, which was… For me, it’s so hard.

Hannah: It’s horrible.

Meriwether: It’s so hard.

Hannah: It’s awful.

Meriwether: I really felt for the director, and trying to text notes that are complicated, that are like, “Can she move her… ” Putting that over a text message is crazy. I didn’t have a room anymore. Everything that Hannah just said was brilliant and exactly right. I loved the script coordinator who had been with me for the year, that after we had the room, Zach Panozzo, who I asked to be on set, so I just promoted him to associate producer, and he was on set every day. He had a really tough job of me texting him and him having to go and give notes to the director, who was occasionally not psyched that there was this dude here shoving a phone in his face.

Hannah: To be fair, they’re not always psyched when it’s you approaching them without the phone.

Meriwether: That was really hard. That being said, I think I also am glad I wasn’t there at every moment. I feel like on New Girl, sometimes when we got behind, I was always trying to fix things on set or fix story issues or character stuff on set. I liked having a little distance I think in the end, because I don’t know how to direct a drama. I think it was kind of good that I was on this couch in a weird little bubble, looking at a feed, pumping milk out of my breasts. It was a very weird existence.

John: Hannah, what were you doing?

Hannah: I was on location the whole time. We all moved to Savannah from June to December.

Meriwether: Oh my god.

Hannah: My husband and I drove across the country with our dog. Similarly, the day after we arrived in Savannah, I found out I was pregnant, which was not a plan that we had. That was a bit of a twist. I was pregnant the entire time we were shooting. By the time we wrapped I was seven and a half months pregnant. I was on set in Savannah in the summer. We’ll talk about it for the bonus. It’s great.

John: Obviously, as the writer covering set, you’re there to make sure that this scene is actually doing what you need it to do. You’re there as a second set of eyes and whispering to the director and getting stuff moved. Were you also rewriting or changing things?

Hannah: Yeah.

John: How much change on the day?

Hannah: Quite a lot. Not on the day necessarily, but there was a lot that changed before we went into production and prep. Patrick was there for prep. Ashley Michael was there for prep. I was there. Then our producing partner Brittany Kahan Ward was there. Brittany basically would body-block people from coming into our offices so we could write. We had seven of eight written. Patrick and I wrote eight. I think during prep, we turned in the first draft. Then I think our shortest script was 57 pages when we flew to Savannah or when we got to Savannah. That was exceptionally long. They all had to be cut. I think every script got cut between 7 and 11 pages. That was just a massive overhaul that we had to do to begin with.

Something that I really like to do, that we’ve done in the room, but haven’t been able to do with all the episodes, because obviously seven and eight weren’t written, we’ve done on this Mindhunter, was we pulled characters, storylines, put them in a final draft document, and treated them almost like they were features. We would have 400 pages of Wendy and would be like, how does she flow through the season? Then you put them back in and see how they speak to each other.

Meriwether: That’s so cool. That’s such a good idea.

Hannah: It was Courtenay Miles on Mindhunter, and Fincher, were like, “Can you take this character and do this?” I was like, “Yes.” Again, it was one of those things where I’m like, “That actually sounds like something that’s common sense to do,” and I’d never done it. I’d never done it for a feature either, just taking a character and being like, here are their scenes. We did that in Plainville with Michelle, in particular because her arc is so circular, and that if you watch the past timeline in the finale and then you watch the present timeline in the pilot, you’re fully caught up. There’s one hour that’s been skipped basically. We were able to do that and spend time on that. Then once a director and a cinematographer come on, this process was not super dissimilar from features in terms of Lisa and Fred were there for prep for a good amount of time and were very involved in how we were going to tell a lot of these stories.

We did I think four tone meetings for one and three and were really drilling down on it. That’s what we were doing for all the prep. Then I covered for one and three. Then Ashley Michael and Patrick did two. She covered me when I was directing. She also covered four and five. I would prep while they were covering. We basically just did that until we lost time, and now we’re here.

Meriwether: I always think a writer on set though… What I always found was so amazing about it was that they had this breadth of knowledge. They knew what every joke was supposed to be and why it was there. To me it was like this person who could speak to the choices that we had made in the writer’s room. I did feel that the lack of that and not having the right answer-

Hannah: It’s like an encyclopedia.

Meriwether: It’s an encyclopedia of what happened in the writers room, which I think is really important. Similarly, because of the situation, I had I think marathon tone meetings that Showalter I think is still scarred from. I think we were averaging about four hours an episode, which is pretty embarrassing.

Hannah: Yeah, but detailed. Very detailed.

Meriwether: I felt like I was just going to have to say everything. It actually did help I think in the end. A lot of rewrites came from the tone meeting, of just talking stuff through. I wasn’t actually doing that much rewriting on set, which was really helpful. I went into production not having written… I had a first draft of Seven, and I had not written Eight at all. I don’t recommend that.

Hannah: Having to write Eight while we were in production was brutal. This was the first time I was a director and I was covered on set, which was a fascinating experience. I was like, “I’ll be fine. I don’t need a writer to cover me. Of the two, I wrote one of them. It’ll be fine.” Then I got three days into production and I turned to Brittany and I was like, “I think I need Ashley Michael to come back.” She was like, “She’s coming back on Friday.”

Meriwether: You need it.

Hannah: It sounds silly, because it’s like, you wrote the episode, you’re a showrunner, why do you need a writer there. It’s because as the director, you’re not thinking about it.

Meriwether: Story.

Hannah: I don’t want to rewrite while I’m also trying to convey to an actor what the interpretation of the material is. I don’t want to have to figure out why the scene is not working in real life when it worked on the page while we have 10 hours to shoot, and then also having a producer on set. That’s the other thing. I was the producer on set when I wasn’t just the writer on set. There were things that would happen that I was like, I as the writer and director now cannot be the producer. You can’t wear all of the hats at once, as much as you want to. I was extraordinarily pregnant at that point and barely mobile. If anything, it doubled down the need for writers to be on set, for features, for TV, for everything. It’s just having another set of eyes is the best gift you could have. I don’t know why you wouldn’t want it.

John: A couple of terms that have come up here that I wanted to make sure we’re talking through. A tone meeting for the two of you is really walking through the script with director or other important department heads in terms of this is what’s happening in the scene, this is what it needs to be, make sure you’re not getting the wrong version of the scene at the end of the day. What else is important to cover in a tone meeting?

Hannah: Any questions they have for anything they don’t understand. The first tone meeting is usually when you get a lot of the notes from them. We did multiple tone meetings for every episode, just because it was just a bananas show and there was a lot that was confusing about it. We would do that. Then it’s really like you go through every line of dialog, every choice a character makes, every moment of the show.

Meriwether: It’s supposed to be your chance to talk to the director. In an ideal world, it’s like this is your version of communicating to the director how you would want it directed, I guess. On New Girl, once we were in production, the tone meeting unfortunately became my first real actually engaging with the director on an episode. A lot of the times our amazing line producer, Erin O’Malley, got the rhythm of that and would try to… While she was prepping with the director, she would know that things would pop up, and she’d text me like, “He’s doing this,” or, “She’s doing,” whatever, because there were certainly times when we’d get to tone meeting and I’d be like, “Wait, that’s completely [inaudible 00:49:24].”

Usually, the tone meetings are set for the Friday before we start shooting on Monday when you’re doing network. That’s too late to make big, big changes. I was trying to get ahead of that. We started calling them pre-tone meetings. They were taking so long that they just became the tone meeting, because nobody was going to do a pre-tone meeting and a tone meeting. All of the designers started listening in, just because so much comes up. For us in The Dropout, it became a concept meeting and a tone meeting, where it was talking through what everything was going to be. Television is supposed to be pretty organized with meetings and production and stuff. I think doing limited series, people are making different rules and what works for them a little bit more.

John: You’re halfway between how a feature would do things and how a normal series would do things, because in both of your shows, you had some sets you could come back to. Were either of your shows block shot or did you shoot episode by episode?

Hannah: Yeah.

Meriwether: Yeah.

John: You were block shooting. Defining terms, in block shooting you can group together all of an actor’s scenes or all of a set that you’re going to use that appears in multiple episodes, so you can efficiently shoot that out and then move on to the next thing. It’s always a question of how to best manage that time.

Meriwether: I’ve never done that before, because for network you don’t really block shoot, because the stuff is just not ready with enough time to block shoot. We block shot The Dropout Episodes 1-4.

John: Wow.

Meriwether: Repping for four drama episodes at the same time, it was like… I couldn’t-

Hannah: When you told me that, because you sent me a photo of old white guys in August, and I was like, “You guys are already on Episode 4?” You were like, “We’re block shooting four episodes.” I was like, “That’s terrible.” What a nightmare. I can’t believe you guys did that.

Meriwether: Keeping it all in your head where you’re like, “Wait, that’s a scene in Episode 4,” it’s just… Then after that we did two. It’s two at a time.

Hannah: We did two at a time, and then we had two solos. Two and Eight were single episodes.

John: Generally, in block shooting you have the same director and cinematographer who’d be working on those things so they could collaborate on that.

Hannah: We had an AV team swap it, going back and forth. Just going back to the tone meeting really quick, because I also toned Six and Seven with Patrick, which was a funny experience to… When you have a co-showrunner, there’s also a funny experience. It’s like who’s going to blink first on what they want to say the scene is about, to see if they’re wrong, because he and I would split scenes and then we’d do passes on each other’s scenes. I think with Seven, we were talking about something, and we were just like, “What do you think this should be about? How should we do this?” It’s fun. It’s a fun experience I encourage everybody to do.

John: That’s nice. Let’s wrap up this conversation and talk about stories based on true events, where these people are still alive. These are people who could come after the studio producers and stuff. At what point were there conversations with legal departments about these are things we can do and things that we can say or can’t say?

Hannah: Constant. All the time.

Meriwether: All the time.

John: You’re going to have to make choices about how you’re portraying these events. There’s certain things which are going to be easily, factually documentable. These text messages happened or didn’t happen. There’s going to be things that you are inventing because you’re inventing a show. At what stage did legal get involved? How early did it happen? How much was it a factor in the story you ended up being able to tell? Let’s start with Girl From Plainville. Obviously, the trial happened. There’s documentation about a lot of stuff. As I watch the show, there is an opening credit thing saying this is based on real events but they’re fictional things. What was the conversation?

Hannah: The short conversation is that we talked to legal I think before we even sold the show. We talked to legal when we were writing the pilot. There were a number of things, not the least of which was Glee, that we knew had to be in the show. We didn’t get the okay to use Glee until three weeks before the show premiered, four weeks before the show premiered.

John: Wow.

Hannah: There was a lot that there were plan B’s on. That was a constant conversation.

Meriwether: That’s crazy. Sorry.

Hannah: We had the okay to do Make You Feel My Love when we shot it. We reshot that in December. That was originally shot with the way that you could cut basically seeing Glee out or only use fair use, which was about three to five seconds, and then you really get into it and it’s two and a half seconds, which meant nothing. We had that version. It just did not work. The whole point was to see it. Patrick spoke to our partners at Hulu. Then we all got on the phone with everybody and were like, “We want to re-shoot it, but we don’t want to re-shoot it unless we can use Glee.” We got that. We were in our last week of shooting. It was early December probably. Then we didn’t get the rights to do the rest of Glee until right before it premiered. We were constantly talking to legal.

Then because we had the text messages, the one thing I really learned from The Dropout that I brought onto this show was having a dedicated researcher, hiring somebody specifically to be a researcher, because there was so much more than even we thought we would need to know in The Dropout and then very quickly realized… I have no idea what microfluidics still is. I think once, I could write a sentence about it and it maybe was accurate, but it’s gone now.

Meriwether: Tiny fluids.

Hannah: I know that, but how they work.

John: Teeny, tiny fluids.

Hannah: We had somebody draw a diagram of the box for us on a whiteboard, because we did not understand it. By the way, it didn’t work, so there’s a reason we didn’t understand it. It was very confusing to us. I hired a dedicated researcher named Patrick Murphy, who’s incredible. He came on very soon at the beginning and made all the text messages searchable for us and made them consumable so that it wasn’t just like literally scrolling through text. Then that was given to our lawyers at the studio so that they could vet every script. Every text message conversation in the show is either exactly the conversation they had or paraphrased for time or they were like, “Heart you,” things like that. It was constant. Then we changed the names of anybody who was underage during the show, except for Conrad in the show.

Meriwether: I obviously never worked with a lawyer on anything that I’d ever written.

John: New Girl wasn’t going to liable anybody. New Girl was happy reality-esque.

Meriwether: It was interesting, because I think at first I was really thrown by it. I think that we started having conversations with legal as soon as we started turning material in. Hannah was there for a lot of it. It was just so exhaustive and just every tiny thing and our amazing writers assistants and script coordinators having to answer a lot of these legal emails and things with our research and being able to-

Hannah: Annotations.

Meriwether: Back it up and annotations, yeah. I think at a certain point, I started really appreciating the conversation. I started thinking about it like it’s keeping you honest in many ways. As a writer you can get really caught up in the story and just trying to tell it in the best way that you think. Often, the real story has nuances and gray areas and just contradictions that are interesting. I think it definitely was frustrating at times. Then other times I feel like it veered us in better directions than it would’ve otherwise. The other thing about legal notes is sometimes they sound really big. They sound really global. There’s really scary legal language where it’s like defamation and all this. Then when you get down to it, it’s like, can you change this glass to a plastic cup?

Hannah: I was going to say.

Meriwether: That was one particular example of that.

Hannah: It’s still one of my favorite legal conversations to use as an example in the room, where I’m like, “When you get this note, this is how you can do it,” which is there’s a scene in the show where… It’s in the trailer, but I don’t think it’s in the show, which is funny. Sunny was going to throw a glass at Elizabeth, and it was the green juice, and it shattered down the hall. It was a 20, 30-minute conversation about this glass and what it could mean.

John: A glass that shattered could be dangerous, whereas a plastic cup is not.

Hannah: Yes. Meriwether was like, “What if it’s plastic?” They were like, “Yeah, totally, that would work.” We were like, “That’s 20 minutes of our lives that we’ll never get back.” Again, it makes sense, and you know why they’re doing it. They’re doing their job. That’s why they have their job, and I don’t. When you break it down to that minimal of a thing and you’re very stressed out about being sued, it’s…

Meriwether: Beyond being stressed out about being sued, I felt, and I’m sure Hannah felt this too, just an enormous responsibility. I thought about it constantly. It was something that I was constantly worried about.

John: Meriwether, there’s legal and there’s ethical. You were telling a story, and some of these people will not have their own chance to tell the story, so you’re going to be the public representation of what they were thinking, what they were doing. I think your show, Hannah, about the ethical and moral responsibilities of portraying teen suicide… While there’s a warning card and there’s all this stuff and there’s resources available, it must have been a constant discussion about how are we going to responsibly portray this real thing that happened in a way that’s interesting but that’s not going to be glamorizing. What were some of the conversations you had about that? Who else did you involve in those conversations?

Hannah: There was a lot of conversation about that before we even agreed to do the show, because it was like, “Is this the right thing to do? Does this need to exist?” Ultimately, I do think it does, again, for what we were talking about. I think it can hopefully be additive to a conversation about the three-dimensionality of mental health, that mental health is health and we should talk about it, and that I think with Coco in particular, and to some extent Michelle, that his suicide was so abrupt and shocking to his family, and who he was with Michelle was not the person that he was with everyone else, and that also he had a really good day the day before he died, or he had a really good morning the day of his death, and that suicidal ideation and depression is not a contiguous line. It’s not a straight line. It’s a roller coaster. You get flipped upside down. You go backwards and forwards. I think that not just expecting somebody who’s depressed to present as depressed I think was a conversation that we’ve been having for a long time and was something that I thought… I thought that this show could help be additive in that conversation, in that depiction.

Also, I’m not a mental health worker. I don’t have any experience in that. We brought on the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, which was the foundation we’d worked with on Bright Places as well. Their team read every outline and read every script. They watched the cuts. They were extremely additive in avoiding triggers or being aware of triggers. There were certain things. Conrad dies by suicide in the show. That was something that obviously is going to have to happen in the show. Being able to tell that in a way that doesn’t feel grotesque or gratuitous or horrific or any of those things was extremely important to us, that we were telling responsibly.

Meriwether: I thought you did that so well in the pilot with them-

Hannah: Thank you.

Meriwether: …discovering his body. I love that the camera stayed on the police officer and that you just were getting the information that you needed from… I think there’s obviously a lot that is done in the writing, but it should be such a conversation with the director and how things are being shot and the way that they’re being represented.

Hannah: I think all of our directors met with AFSP to have those conversations as well. That in particular was something that we talked to them about was how to show… We never show his body on the show in that way. Obviously, we have images of it or glimpses of it. That was quite gratuitous to me in particular, and to Patrick. We didn’t want to do that.

Something that I learned on the show that I never knew before, and I’d made a movie that dealt with similar issues, was that the terminology or the phrasing of it is died by suicide, because committed puts the blame and onus on the person who’s suffering. That depression that leads to suicide is like cancer. That is like taking the blame off of that person, which for me was a revelation and was really honestly that very small, which was in our very first conversation with AFSP, that very small… They corrected me. They were like, “Hey, just so you know, this is how we talk about it.” That really actually opened up the whole conversation of Conrad’s journey and trying to be respectful.

I absolutely live in fear that the thing I don’t want to do is ever make somebody feel not seen because of the show or because of something that we were trying to say and feel ignored or that we did something salacious or anything like that. We really actively tried to avoid that at all times.

John: Even thinking about that moment where the body is discovered, we stay with Norbert Leo Butz’s character, who calls to say there’s yellow tape everywhere, doesn’t even say that it’s death. It’s just that it’s about the moment or the situation and not the evaluation of what’s happened there.

Hannah: Going to what Meriwether said, that’s actually what Co said to Lynn. In that truth is stranger than fiction or more emotional than fiction, everything that happens in the pilot is something that was sourced. A lot of the conversation were things that we got from court transcripts or interviews. Jesse Barron had done a lot of interviews and had a lot of material that couldn’t make it into the Esquire article that we had. Lynn in particular for me is somebody that I felt an enormous amount of responsibility for, in telling her story. She was actually the reason I leaned into the show in a lot of ways. I love her. I think she’s such a fascinating woman. The way she speaks is so eloquent. What she’s gone through is horrific. I feel a real responsibility, of course.

John: Great. Now, we’ve had a long conversation about some of the shows you’ve made. I don’t think we have time to do a big deep dive on how these other things could be a movie. I want to hit the headlines here. We’ll put links in the show notes for what we were going to talk about more fully. Maybe we can vote on which of these three things is most interesting for you guys to pitch as a future limited series.

The first one we want to talk through was Birds Aren’t Real, which is early 2017, Peter McIndoe was studying psychology at the University of Alabama, and he went to a protest, and he wanted to be a counter-protester, and he held up a sign called Birds Aren’t Real, which was just a joke. Then he became an improvver who was going on this whole big fake conspiracy about birds not being real. My teenage daughter loves it. I think it’s a great meme. Is there a story to be told about Birds Aren’t Real?

Hannah: Yes.

John: Either of our Lizzes, do you think there’s something to be made there?

Hannah: I’m trying to pull up the… Maybe I won’t, because it’s actually my One Cool Thing is this article, so I won’t say it. I would say that there’s something to be made about the society that does that, that we’re the society that two years ago one of the most famous NBA stars in the League is like, “The Earth is flat.” That’s where we’re at in our space.

Meriwether: I feel like it’s such an amazing story about young people too. That part of it really jumps out at me as just what it feels like to be a young person right now where you’re living in this absurd time and it coming out in that absurd way. That feels really funny to me. Or you lean in and you just do a documentary about how birds are real, as if you’re explaining birds to somebody.

Hannah: It’s the Pelican Brief. We actually watch the documentary.

John: We love it.

Meriwether: That’s such a dad joke.

Hannah: I know. You’re welcome. It happens though.

John: I do also love that he’s homeschooled and that he says that that’s a big part of how he has this feeling about… Being raised in the bubble of homeschooling and in a very Christian upbringing is interesting.

You’ve both made great series about young blonde women who are the center of a story in which mental health becomes a big thing. Let’s talk about the Britney Spears conservatorship and the end of the Britney Spears conservatorship. What is the series we might make about Britney Spears? One of the things we always are wrestling with when Craig’s on the show with us is where do you start and where do you end the story. Is there a story to be made about the conservatorship and her being trapped in this and breaking free of it? Do you start the story earlier? What kind of Britney Spears limited series would be interesting to make?

Hannah: I’m just laughing because I feel like I’m going to end up making this show, because Elle and I recently discovered I’ve only worked with blonde actresses in my career. I’m just going to make another blonde story.

Meriwether: The gaslighting part of it is really interesting to me. I think that the experience of realizing that you’re trapped in this thing… The story that really jumped out at me about all of it was the putting a bug in her room, that her dad put a bug in her room. Just the feeling of safety with the family and then slowly realizing that that family is against you I think is fascinating. I feel like that would be what I would focus on, as long as you could have a lot of big musical numbers, I guess.

Hannah: Obviously. The thing that makes me the saddest of that story is that Britney did need help. She needed help. She needed somebody to help her get out of a very dark place. They took advantage of her in that way. She still didn’t get help. That’s the part that ultimately is so tragic to me is that she didn’t get what was the only thing she needed. The way we talk about mental health, and particularly women, and maybe just because I had a baby, but postpartum…

The thing that sticks with me that she talked about was her sitting in that restaurant with her two kids because the paparazzi were outside, and nobody would help her. Everyone was making fun of her in that restaurant. That’s horrific. I’m not Britney Spears, and I could not imagine my child having a meltdown and everyone being horrible to me in a crowded place. I find that so tragic.

Meriwether: That’s interesting. Would you start the story there? It’s a rock and a hard place. She’s either going to be out in public on her own and totally under attack, or she’s going to be in her family where she thinks is safe, is actually-

Hannah: The complete opposite.

Meriwether: …against her. I think that’s fascinating. My agent who’s no longer my agent, early on when I started writing, I was talking to him about wanting to go to therapy. He was like, “No, don’t go to therapy. I need you to keep writing, keep making scripts.” He was joking, but I think that mindset of just keep producing, just keep producing, and nothing else-

Hannah: Don’t take care of yourself.

Meriwether: Yeah. That part of it’s interesting. I also love that in the Britney Spears story, that Instagram becomes this outlet for her is fascinating.

Hannah: I’m really into this. Should we do it?

John: By the time this episode comes out, you guys could start this up. I feel like the two of you together [inaudible 01:10:04].

Meriwether: I do think that question of would we need that-

John: Do we need it?

Meriwether: Her story has been taken from her so many times. It would be very interesting. At this point she needs to tell her own story, I feel.

John: Finally, MacKenzie Scott, so MacKenzie Bezos Scott. I only knew her as Jess Bezos’s ex-wife, who has been giving away all her money. I wasn’t clear on her backstory. She actually has a really interesting backstory. In some ways it reminds me of The Dropout, Elizabeth Holmes, in that she grew up with a lot of money, all the money went away. She struggled to get through her writing degree.

Meriwether: She had to leave high school because they couldn’t pay for her school, right?

John: Yeah, but then ends up becoming quite a good writer and then being with Jeff Bezos and helping him start Amazon. She was a much more interesting character. Now I have to say, she has dark hair, so that may just rule her out from Liz Hannah’s-

Meriwether: Oh, Jesus.

Hannah: Didn’t read the article because of that. I was like, “Ah.”

Meriwether: By the way, I did make a show with an actress with dark hair for a very long time.

John: Famously dark hair and bangs.

Hannah: Also, I just want to be clear that I’m a brunette, so let’s not make this a situation. I just think it’s funny. That’s all.

John: Is there a MacKenzie Bezos story to be told that is not set around Jeff Bezos? What are you thinking about her as a character at the center of a series? Is there a series to be made there? I’m not sure there is, but tell me what your instinct is.

Meriwether: I love that she’s given away $12 billion. I think about that all the time, just happening into so much money. I think I would start it in the middle of her marriage or the beginning of the end of the marriage and then just track the experience of getting divorced from the world’s richest man. Then she falls in love with a high school teacher, which I think is amazing, and then starts giving away… She’s given away more money than anybody else in the world, I think, if I remember.

Hannah: I think in that amount of time.

John: Meriwether, what you’re describing though is… I wonder whether you need to tell the actual real person’s story or if it’s just an interesting jumping-off place, because you could imagine a woman who gets divorced and ends up with a crazy amount of money. It doesn’t have to be billions, but just a crazy amount of money, and then falls in love with the chemistry teacher. That’s an interesting premise in and of itself, somebody who is so-

Hannah: I smell a rom-com.

John: I’m just wondering if it’s a Marry Me. I think there’s something more classically comedic about it.

Meriwether: That’s interesting. I don’t know. It’s such a marriage and a couple that I feel like people want to know about. That’s another interesting one, because she’s really, really private. I think it would have to be a question if you’d want to invade that privacy.

John: There’s also the possibility of where… Succession isn’t technically about the Murdochs.

Meriwether: That’s true.

John: It’s sort of about the Murdochs. Maybe you could do a show that’s not exactly them, but that high-profile divorce is at the center of it.

Meriwether: That’s a great idea.

John: I’ll sell that one. Divide the three [inaudible 01:13:20].

Meriwether: Ours is about Sydney Beers.

Hannah: I also can’t believe we’ve been talking for 90 minutes and Succession just got brought up, and neither of us were the ones that brought it up.

John: Hey. [Crosstalk 01:13:33].

Hannah: An interesting twist. Didn’t expect it. I love the idea that while Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are both trying to buy Twitter and flying into outer space, she’s just writing checks for billions of dollars.

John: To the YMCA, yeah.

Hannah: It’s like the best way to get back on your asshole ex-husband is be a really good person and make him look even shittier. It’s kind of amazing.

Meriwether: I also think it’s amazing all she wanted to do was publish a book, and then she ends up in a relationship with the man who’s killing bookstores, and then she can’t sell her…

John: That irony is amazing.

Meriwether: Maybe you can do an insane First Wives Club with Melinda Gates. By the way, I do love true stories. I know there’s probably now too many of them and we’re going to go in a different direction. My dad is a journalist. I feel like there’s something interesting to me. I do get excited about them.

John: You were describing at the start of the conversation that you want people to tell you what the rules are, what the boundaries are. What’s nice about reality is there’s some boundaries there, and that does help [inaudible 01:14:42].

Meriwether: Having you repeat that back to me was like therapy. I’m like, oh yeah, I do like when people tell me what the rules are.

Hannah: I also think what you said about the interior life and that… Giving purpose to true story is I think the important thing. For me, it serves a purpose if you’re telling the interior story, and that can’t be told by journalists, or shouldn’t, or that’s not their job, as you said. I thought that was really smart. I’m also somebody who’s literally made a career doing true stories, and so I apologize. So sorry.

John: It’s come time for our One Cool Things on the show. I have two very related things. These are two AI-powered art generation tools. This is where you give them a prompt and they come back at you with just amazing artwork that has been generated by your prompt. One’s called Midjourney. The other one’s Dall-E. Let me see if I can share this in the Zoom so you guys can see. I’ll share a link here so you guys can see this. The thing I loved most about Dall-E was there’s an example of The Matrix if directed by Wes Anderson. That was the prompt.

Meriwether: Do I want that?

Hannah: That’s amazing.

Meriwether: I think I do. I think I do want that.

John: [Crosstalk 01:15:57].

Hannah: Is that Fantastic Mr. Fox?

John: Sort of, yeah.

Hannah: I was trying to think of, with some of these things, who’s the filmmaker or the storyteller to do the jumping-off point for that. There’s something interesting about a David Lynchian Birds Are Real story.

Meriwether: The whole thing is just a man in a room with a curtain behind him talking about birds.

Hannah: Or he controls all the birds in the world.

Meriwether: You could also do, Hannah… I’m sorry I’m still stuck on this.

Hannah: This is great.

Meriwether: You could do a bird as the main character talking about how it’s not real.

Hannah: He’s having a crisis.

John: A dissociative disorder.

Meriwether: This is amazing.

Hannah: What’s that movie where Amy Schumer thought she was like Emily Ratjkowski, that movie I Feel Pretty, but you do that with a bird, where a bird thinks he’s a human. Is that where we go? I feel like, guys, we’re set on this one. We’ve got a few shows and movies.

John: 100%. The concept art will all be generated by-

Hannah: I love this.

John: …these two great AI things, which are remarkable. Bart Simpson by Pablo Picasso is also fantastic. Literally, if a real person painted this, I would buy these paintings. I just think they’re terrific.

Hannah: These Spider-Man ones are dope.

Meriwether: This is awesome.

Hannah: I love this.

John: The same stuff’s coming for writing, which is scary, but also interesting. We’ll see where we’re at. Ten years from now I’ll be talking to the AI people who created the next-

Hannah: I know. People already think writers are expendable, so let’s just make a computer app to do it.

John: Hannah, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

Hannah: I do. There’s this article in The Atlantic that I read yesterday that I saw people going around. If you haven’t read it, I really recommend it. Also, if I listened to it as a podcast, because now these… I love that you don’t have to read them, you can hear them. Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid by Jonathan Haidt. Strong recommend. It’s fascinating. The long and short of it is that social media’s the devil and none of us should be on it.

John: That feels right.

Hannah: I shared it on Instagram. It felt very weird.

John: Perfect.

Meriwether: Perfect spot for it.

John: Hypocrisy.

Hannah: I thought it was great. I thought it was exactly where it should live.

John: Meriwether, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

Meriwether: I just recently re-watched, for the millionth time, Notorious, the Alfred Hitchcock movie. I just love it so much. That’s not super cutting edge. It’s definitely not AI-generated art. There’s this scene between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman. When I go back and rewatch things, I often just find myself on Wikipedia reading about it. I didn’t realize there’s a scene in the beginning where they’re kissing for so long. Apparently, they had to break up the kiss after two minutes, and then they would go back to kissing, because of the code. They weren’t allowed to kiss for longer than two minutes. If you watch it, they’re kissing and then they break apart and then they start kissing again, and then they break apart and then they start kissing again.

John: I feel like I’ve seen the movie, but a long time ago. I can’t even imagine two minutes of kissing. That just feels like that’s a long kiss.

Meriwether: Wait, it must’ve been shorter than that. I don’t know. I’m sorry, I’m misquoting it. It was definitely because of the code they had to keep breaking up the kissing.

John: That’s great.

Meriwether: It’s so hot. It always blows my mind.

John: Love it.

Meriwether: They’re not even allowed to open their mouth when they kiss each other. Most of it is them just smelling each other’s faces. You’re like, why is that the hottest thing?

John: I find characters who are about to touch, that’s the most tantalizing moment. When they actually touch, great.

Meriwether: The To Catch A Thief scene where… I obviously love Hitchcock. They’re watching fireworks. They’re not even touching. It’s Grace Kelly and Cary Grant watching fireworks. Maybe they were just all really beautiful. I don’t know. Anyway, I love that movie.

Hannah: I was going to say, it’s also Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant. I would watch them-

Meriwether: That’s true.

John: Beautiful people.

Hannah: I think that’s a Hitchcock thing though, convincing you you’ve seen something that you haven’t and finding the tension in that.

John: Hitchcock would’ve been a great director for you guys’ show because he loved pretty blondes. He would’ve made a hell of a Dropout. Elizabeth Holmes and Hitchcock together, come on. She’s an icy blonde.

Meriwether: Can you imagine Hitchcock directing television? Can you imagine him sitting through a tone meeting?

John: No, I don’t think that would work especially well.

Meriwether: That was another thing in the Wikipedia page. There was a moment when Ingrid Bergman had one idea on set, and he loved her so much that he took the idea. It actually made it onto the Wikipedia page because actors were so-

John: It’s so remarkable.

Meriwether: …afraid to not speak in his presence. I don’t know.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nico Mansy. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin, I am @johnaugust. Are the two of you on Twitter?

Hannah: I am.

John: Talk about social media and the evils of social media.

Meriwether: I was hacked, and I never got back on.

John: Smart choice there, Meriwether. Hannah, where are you on Twitter?

Hannah: @itslizhannah, same on Instagram. I don’t have Twitter on my phone anymore, which feels like a real-

John: That’s smart.

Hannah: I became obsessive, and it needs to go away. I also sit around with a child now. I’m just scrolling. It’s doom scrolling constantly.

John: Not good.

Meriwether: Instead of following me on social media, watch that scene in Notorious.

John: That’s how you get the real, full Liz Meriwether experience.

Hannah: Read the article about how social media’s destroying our lives.

John: You can find the show notes for these episodes and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you 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 babies and having babies and being pregnant while making television programs. Liz Hannah and Liz Meriwether, absolute delight having you on the show. You are always welcome back any time, even without a new series.

Hannah: This was great.

Meriwether: What a dream.

Hannah: Thank you.

Meriwether: What a dream. Thank you.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Let’s talk about babies, because I think people who’ve listened to the show for a long time know that I absolutely adore babies. I’m obsessed with babies. If I could just be a part-time baby nurse, I would be delighted. Give me a baby. You guys have babies. Hannah, you were describing that during production you showed up to set and you found out you were pregnant and went through all of your pregnancy while there.

Hannah: I had an OB in Savannah. It was a bizarre experience.

Meriwether: Oh my goodness.

Hannah: Was it a thing? Did production know that you were pregnant? What were your choices there? What were the decisions?

Meriwether: I told my manager, our producing partner, who’s the EP that was on the ground with me. I told her four seconds after I told my husband. I told my assistant, because I was like, “I can’t tell… “ You’re not supposed to tell anybody until you’re 12 weeks. I think we started production, or we were close, it was a week out when I hit 12 weeks. Then I through it told a few people. I told Elle and I told our costume designer, Mirren, who I’ve worked with a number of times and love. I didn’t really tell anyone. I didn’t look pregnant, quote unquote, until the last week of production. I just looked like I was gaining production weight the whole time, which I also did, so that was fun.

Meriwether: That’s what we called the Peggy on Mad Men.

Hannah: I did the Peggy. I basically just pretended I was eating for two but only one.

Meriwether: By the way, it must be nice that you didn’t look pregnant. I wouldn’t know how that feels.

Hannah: I did, and now I still look like I’m pregnant, eight weeks after giving birth. That was actually fine. I really loved being pregnant. I was really happy that I had something that had to distract me from doom scrolling about pregnancy and what could happen and all of the horrific things that went through my mind of what could happen to my child, and then also had a distraction from the show.

I wasn’t necessarily able to, although I’m sure my partners just completely disagree, take it too seriously. I took it seriously enough in that it was my job and I wanted it to be as good as it could, but I was also like, “I have a baby, and that feels really important.” It didn’t become all-consuming until we were… We were in post while we were doing the show, but we were in post for the last four episodes, five episodes when we got back. Then I was eight, nine and a half months pregnant doing post, and that was really brutal. I had amazing partners. I only did one conference call from the hospital after giving birth.

John: Now, Meriwether, you were in the same boat. You were pregnant during production.

Meriwether: Yeah. It was my second baby. For my first baby, I was also pregnant and… It’s a very common experience. I don’t believe in the don’t tell people until 12 weeks, as somebody who’s had a miscarriage, because I feel like if you want to tell people right away and then you have a miscarriage, people also need to know that.

Hannah: Absolutely.

Meriwether: It’s really important, unless you just don’t want to share. Then that’s also fine. I guess I just feel like the rule about don’t tell people until after 12 weeks is just to preserve other people, not to help you.

Hannah: I think for me it was my superstition of being very jinxy. It was like, “If I tell people, then something will go wrong,” which that’s not true. My husband also wore the same clothes during the March Madness, because we kept winning, which I’m sure affected the game. I agree. I think it’s normalizing all of that.

Meriwether: In a strange way, Zoom helped a lot, because it wasn’t immediately apparent that I was pregnant. I think it’s obviously totally unspoken at this point because people have been drained, but there is that feeling of, oh no, is this going to mean that we can’t… I got pregnant when we were in this real transition moment with the project. There was definitely a feeling of, is this going to mean the end of this, because we’re not going to have her focus?

I did a lot of overcompensating of just like, “I’m going to hire a million nannies.” I wish that wasn’t the go-to thing. I obviously completely believe in family leave, and it’s so important. It’s just really hard with production, because when it… The Dropout, we’d been sitting waiting for a year. Then when they tell you it’s time, there’s really nothing you can do. You just have to take each day at a time and listen to yourself and think the thing that you’re doing is really important, but also taking care of yourself is really important and just having to check in with yourself a lot.

I think for me I don’t like being pregnant. I am not overly fond of infants, because I feel it’s sort of just terror. Then it started being fun later on when it wasn’t just pure terror. I think having something else to do, having something else to think about I think was really helpful for me. I will say for certain I think male executives, if you’re in a fight with them and then you just start rubbing your pregnant belly, sometimes you win arguments that you shouldn’t win, because there’s a Mother Earth goddess over here. I definitely think sometimes it works in your favor.

Hannah: I definitely also didn’t, I think, give enough credit to… I thought people would think I was a burden, or similarly, I couldn’t do my job, just because I think that’s what’s ingrained in all of us, whereas my assistant knew from the beginning and was amazing, and then our crafty women found out, because I just kept eating constantly, and they were like, “Is she okay?” They literally took care of me the entire time in production. They kept it a secret until I was ready to tell people or until I started to show. Then they would check on me all day every day. They were like my mothers on set. These were two women who I’d never met until we went to Savannah. The community of women and parents, I wouldn’t say it was even gender-specific, I would just say of parents on the show that took care of me, was really remarkable. I didn’t necessarily expect that. Yes, there were times that I was hysterically crying. I was like, “Guys, I’m fine. This is just a thing that’s going to happen, and move on. I’m not as sad as I could feel right now.” I think that was really something that I had never anticipated was the open arms of people taking care of me on that. Even in arguments on set, it was I think a little more subdued.

The first three months I was so stressed out and so freaked out about the show and so freaked out about being pregnant, I really did think I was going to lose the baby, because I was not in a good place. I held that in for a really long time. Talking about it, going to what you were saying, Meriwether, freed me up to start preemptively dealing with all of the emotions I was dealing with.

Meriwether: It’s tough, because in an ideal world, aka Europe, there’s help. There’s help built in to being a citizen of that country and just getting childcare. I just said in my answer, I’m going to hire a bunch of nannies, which was sort of a joke, but I can afford that. It was absolutely crucial to me being able to do this show. I wonder if there’s some way to build that in. I don’t want to say studios should have to pay for… It’s absolutely a necessary thing that you need, and I would not be able to do it without… I had a baby nurse and a nanny, because I have two kids. I don’t know. I think that’s really important and sometimes gets left out of the conversation. It’s just like, oh she was pregnant and she did the show. It’s like, no, I had an enormous amount of help that I was paying.

Hannah: I love that Melanie Lynskey thanked her nanny when she won a Craig’s Choice Award. I got so emotional seeing that, because I have a night nurse for my son. I literally could not function as a human, nor do my job. I released the show two weeks after I gave birth. I could not do that without help. My husband couldn’t do it on his own. My husband is super involved, but I don’t know how we could do all of that. There’s an enormous amount of privilege in me being able to say that sentence, the fact that I was able to do anything because I could afford a night nurse, or I can get sleep because of that. I can make choices about my life because of it. I can continue to work. There’s an enormous amount of privilege that is very unfair in I think how we deal with children.

Meriwether: The other thing I would say is also postpartum. I think that’s also hugely important. When we shot the Bless This Mess pilot, I was pumping, and I had to pump in an actual barn where we were shooting, near cows, real cows. That was a low point. A low point for my assistant was carrying that milk, I’m sure, back to the freezer. I think just the difficulty in the logistics of pumping and breastfeeding as it relates to production I think is something that isn’t talked about a lot. How do you make sure that there’s a place to pump on set for people who need it?

John: We had Jack Thorne on the podcast recently. He was talking about disability access for members of crew. I don’t want to medicalize or fragilize pregnancy, which is such an incredibly common thing, but it feels like those accommodations and accessibility for people who need to pump breast milk or just have a place to sit down because they need to be able to sit down, it feels like it’s part of the same conversations, like how do you make sure that-

Meriwether: Yes, humans.

John: …sets are designed for everybody who needs to be there and who can be there, because otherwise people are going to get excluded. You guys were running the shows. They had to figure out ways to accommodate you. If you weren’t, it would’ve been tougher. There wouldn’t have been the same-

Meriwether: Absolutely. It’s infuriating. It’s totally infuriating. You’re right, it’s not just pregnancy. It’s just accepting that people working on shows, on sets, are human beings, and writers rooms too.

Hannah: I’m going to shout out my dad. My dad’s a designer, and he wrote a book called Access By Design 30 years ago, which is about not having disability access, but having just access for humanity. You don’t have stairs and a ramp. You just have a ramp, because people who are able to walk on two legs can walk up a ramp. We don’t need stairs to differentiate. Having door handles that everyone can use rather than specifically calling out somebody who can’t use it. That to me is something of just like we don’t have to have the pod where I go in and do this thing. We just should have it all be accessible at all times to whatever any individual’s need is, because nobody’s the same. Sorry I cut you off, Meriwether, but what you were talking about with writers room I agree with.

Meriwether: The short seasons of these streaming shows are also not conducive to women taking leave. That’s another thing that’s complicated, because on New Girl people were able to go away for a month or two and come back. When I first started New Girl, a male writer came to me and was like, “My wife’s having a baby.” My showrunners, who are great men, but they were just telling me how things work, and they were like, “He gets a week off.” I was like, “Okay.” I to my dying day regret it, but I was like, “Okay, you get a week off.”

I think that mentality, like this is how it’s always been done, if you take any more than that you’re being overly precious about it, is totally wrong. I also understand the difficulty of shorter seasons where you’re like, if I take a month off, I’m missing half of the room or something. It’s all a bit complicated. If you want to put it in purely cynical terms, that’s how people do their best work. If you want good shows, if you want good content, make the experience pleasant and livable. It took me a while to learn that, by the way. I really had to figure that out.

Hannah: I also think shorter order and limited series, because at least with ongoing series you have a hiatus of some kind and there’s some consistency. If you get more seasons you know [inaudible 01:35:51]. Limiteds you can just stack on top of each other. They can be happening any time. Patrick, like I said, was doing Death and Plainville at the same time. He had done another show before that. He has a family and was basically gone from his family for three years. Though there’s a benefit, I creatively really enjoy doing limiteds, because I feel like I’m able to express everything in a short span. I get to take risks and do some things that I wouldn’t necessarily have the opportunity to do and something ongoing. I also think there’s benefits of things that are ongoing that you don’t have on limiteds. I think for me it was baby steps. It was like I’ll do a 2-hour and then an 8-hour and then I’ll be okay maybe doing 13.

That I think is really an expectation now in this industry, particularly with showrunners that are experienced in doing limiteds, is that you just have the next one lined up and you’re ready to go. It’s really, really, really hard. It’s the hardest thing I have ever professionally done was make this show, and regardless of having a child, need a break, but then I also was pregnant and had a child and my maternity leave was my quote unquote vacation, which FYI it’s not. Also, there’s not really a maternity leave.

Meriwether: You didn’t think it was a… I had the time of my life.

Hannah: I’ve been sipping Mai Tais and just waving at my child from afar because he’s perfect. My husband just texted me and he’s like, “How’s it going?” because he’s losing his shit.

Meriwether: I know, I have to go put my kids to bed.

John: We can wrap this up. Thank you so much for this conversation on babies. We’ll circle back in 10 years and see whether the industry’s improved how we handle pregnancy and babies.

Hannah: I don’t think so.

John: There’s no way to say anymore.

Hannah: We may have the David Lynchian Birds Aren’t Real show.

Meriwether: I would like to see that.

John: We’ll follow up.

Meriwether: Thank you so much.

John: Thanks.

Hannah: Bye.

John: Bye.

Links:

  • The Dropout on Hulu and The Dropout Podcast
  • The Girl from Plainville Show and the Esquire article by Jesse Barron
  • Liz Meriwether
  • Liz Hannah on Twitter
  • Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid by Jonathan Haidt for the Atlantic
  • Notorious Alfred Hitchcock Film
  • AI art – MidJourney and Dall-E
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Nico Mansy (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (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.