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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 478: The One Hour Drama, Transcript

December 11, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2020/one-hour-dramas).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is gone this week but luckily I have two guests who more than make up for that absence. Dailyn Rodriguez is a television writer-producer whose credits include Ugly Betty, The Night Shift, and USA’s Queen of the South for which she serves as executive producer. Next up she’s moving to the DC universe where she’s writing the pilot for a new Wonder Girl series. Dailyn, welcome to the show.

**Dailyn Rodriguez:** Thank you so much. I’m so happy to be here.

**John:** So you are actually in the writing process now. You’re starting on this new pilot. What is it like to start on a new show after having run a show?

**Dailyn:** You know, it’s really exciting. I’ve been in the Queen of the South world and in that headspace for four years, so it’s exciting to branch out, try something new. Also I’ve never worked in the superhero genre, so I’m learning a lot and it’s really exciting. It’s something very different for me, although I make jokes that Queen of the South is kind of a superhero show except she doesn’t have super powers. She’s really smart. But it’s her against the bad guys kind of storyline. So, it’s also a different studio and a different network, so it’s relearning the notes process with different people and their rhythms are different and their likes and dislikes are different and etc., etc.

**John:** Yeah, I want to get into all that with you, both running an ongoing show but changing up to develop new stuff. So, I want to get into that. But first I want to welcome our second guest, Chad Gomez Creasey, whose TV credits include Pushing Daisies, Castle, NCIS: New Orleans where he serves as executive producer. But way back before Scriptnotes he had roughly Megana’s job as my assistant. Chad, welcome to the show.

**Chad Gomez Creasey:** Thank you so much for having me on. It’s a pleasure to be here today.

**John:** Now, seven seasons into NCIS: New Orleans and I’ve been meaning to ask you why is there so much crime in the Navy. What’s happening here? Is it a Murder She Wrote situation? Why is there so much crime in the Navy?

**Chad:** You know, the best thing too about New Orleans is that in reality there isn’t an actual naval base there. There’s like a naval reserve, an air-naval reserve base that is shared by the Navy and Marines and the Coast Guard. So, yeah, it’s definitely you wonder why a small city of half a million has so much crime, but you know, it’s New Orleans. What happens there stays there.

**John:** Cool. Now, generally on the show we talk about limited series like The Queen’s Gambit or Chernobyl, but today because I have you guys here I want to get back to the meat and potatoes of one-hour dramas on broadcast and basic cable, because even in this age of streaming it’s still the bulk of TV writing jobs out there. So I want to talk about the format, about writer’s rooms, about the role of the writer-producer. And because it’s 2020 I also need to talk about the pandemic and how you guys are handling that for your shows.

Also, in our bonus segment for Premium members I want to look at ambient TV. So what does it mean to watch television that you don’t even have to watch? So stick around in the Premium segment for that.

But let’s get into some basic terms here. What do we mean by normal television or traditional television? Dailyn, what does traditional television mean to you compared to limited series or streaming? What do you think of with the kind of show that you’re writing for Wonder Girl or for Queen of the South? What does that look like?

**Dailyn:** Well, there’s a different way that you sort of look at the storyline vis-à-vis breaking structurally, because you really have to work towards the act breaks because of commercial breaks. So it’s a much more strict way of looking at structure. And working dramatically towards that dun-dun-dun commercial. So that makes it sort of a different beast to write.

**John:** In features we talk about act breaks, you know, first act, second act, third act, but those act breaks are not real strict things. Whereas in a broadcast show that has commercial breaks those are real things. So for a show like Queen of the South how many act breaks are there?

**Dailyn:** We have a teaser and five acts. But the teaser really is just a long act. So technically it’s six acts.

**John:** Great. So that teaser is from the minute the program starts up to some reveal and then after the teaser is some title sequence, a commercial, and then we’re getting back into the real meat of the show.

**Dailyn:** That’s correct. And there’s sort of like a rule, at least for Queen of the South, that no act can be really shorter than five pages. So, that’s why acts have just gotten shorter because of that, but it can’t be shorter than five pages.

**John:** Now, Chad, on a NCIS: New Orleans show how many acts are there and how regimented are the act breaks for something like your show?

**Chad:** Yeah, I mean, look, we’re a traditional network show on CBS, so we have a teaser plus four acts, so it’s really five acts. And we are very regimented. We aim to be about 42 minutes and 30 second for the entire episode. We can be under by a certain amount. I think it’s up to 2.5 minutes. But we can’t ever be over that amount, because we still have to have the correct amount of time in the commercial breaks. And sort of similar with Queen of the South, I think at a minimum each act break we try to aim for minimum of six pages. But I think on air CBS has pretty strict rules that we have to be around three to 3.5 minutes is the shortest that any act can be.

**John:** Now, it’s not just what the scripts look like on the page and how you’re writing towards those act breaks, but there’s also an expectation with these kind of shows of some return to a kind of stasis, especially on a crime procedural like NCIS: New Orleans. But you’ll also see this in superhero shows that Dailyn is writing right now is that there’s a thing that happens over the course of the episode, but by the end of the episode the world is pretty much the same. Is that something that is challenging for you after four years and now seven years of writing your shows?

**Chad:** Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of NCIS: New Orleans in a good way we have a formula. And, I mean, now that we are seven seasons in and I think going upwards of 150 episodes we’re constantly in our writer’s room pitching stories where it’s like, wait, did we do something like that beforehand? And we then have to look back and be, oh yeah, we did something like that season one, but how much of the episode was it, was that really the crime, can we do it slightly differently? Because there only are so many crimes that you can be doing or versions of that crime. So for us it’s always looking at the procedural story and how can we close out something every episode. But the stuff that is definitely more enjoyable is with our characters and how can we sort of be playing with them, advancing their individual stories.

But, yeah, it’s definitely a challenge and we are constantly looking back. We kind of have a rule that if we did something at least three seasons ago we can kind of repeat it again in some way, shape, or form. But definitely not within the past couple of seasons.

**John:** And Dailyn for your show how do you balance that needing to feel like there’s some progress overall over the course of a season versus how much happens over the course of an episode? What is that discussion like for you guys?

**Dailyn:** Well, our show is more serialized, because it has more of a soap opera element to it. So for us it’s very much sitting down at the beginning of the season and figuring out where we want to end the main character, Teresa Mendoza. And we work towards that. But even though it’s more serialized than like NCIS: New Orleans we still have a little bit of a formula. Almost always act four there’s an action sequence or it culminates into some shootout or something like that. There are tropes that you sort of have to repeat, even though you don’t want to. It’s like somebody always gets kidnapped every season. [laughs] You know, there’s somebody that you thought was good turns bad. I mean, there’s only so many things you can do in a crime show. So there are – for us the challenge is how do you make that new and fresh every season knowing that we’re sort of treading in similar areas.

**John:** Now, I hear both of you saying we and us and other writers will talk about we and us and they’re being sort of generous because really they’re talking about the work that they’re doing, but you have writing staffs who are all working together to do this thing. So, that’s a huge difference between Craig writing Chernobyl or Scott Frank writing Queen’s Gambit. They were just doing it by themselves, whereas you guys have to coordinate a team to all be working on something together. So let’s get into that. Let’s talk about writing staffs and how you’re figuring out the course of a season.

So, Chad, something like NCIS: New Orleans what is the blue sky process at the start of a season figuring out these are the kinds of things we’re trying to do this season?

**Chad:** Yeah, I mean, usually we have to pick up from our previous season where we generally leave things on a cliffhanger, or sometimes we do sort of close out a storyline that we’ve been following for at least maybe half the season but we kind of tease up something at the end that we’re going to continue into the next season. And it’s a challenge because we’re 24 episodes. And I think we’re one of only maybe ten shows left on traditional network that do that many episodes in a season. And so we generally come in at the start of the season and the first week is generally blue sky and we’re just kind of looking at our main characters and just sort of deciding where we want them to go. We usually only look at it for half a season at a time, because we generally have a midseason break, usually around episode 10 to 12. So we’ll kind of tackle that first chunk.

And then we kind of let the season then evolve naturally. Things that we’re enjoying, storylines, how some of the characters are evolving. Then at that midseason point that’s when we kind of look at the rest of the season and sort of map out what we’re aiming toward. Because doing 24 episodes we really are slaves to the calendar. So there isn’t a ton of time to waste before we have to really get in there and start breaking individual episodes.

I wish we had the luxury of spending an entire month or more kind of really mapping out where we’re going, but we just don’t get the chance to do that.

**John:** Now, Dailyn, as a more serialized show do you spend more time figuring out the whole arc of what the season is at the start? And if so, if you were to look back at a season how closely does it match your plan for how a season was going to go?

**Dailyn:** Yeah, we are fortunate that we have more preproduction time. So we have more time in the writer’s room with our writers. And I co-showrun Queen of the South with Ben Lobato, so what we try and do – at least season four and season five we work just us two together and come up with the shape of what we want for the season and sort of have a middle point and an endpoint and some sort of storylines for our other characters, not just the protagonist, because we serialize all of our characters. They sort of have a character arc through the season.

And then we bring it to the writer’s room and we lay it out on the board. We sort of have the whole season out on a big board, like every episode, because we had 13 episodes season four and 10 episodes this last season, season five. And so we have a general idea of what we want to do. And then we throw it to the room and we go, “What do you guys think? Should we move this over here? Do you have a pitch for this?” And then the writers help us fill out the missing pieces.

So it’s really a great environment and it’s really creative. And having the same writers pretty much for two seasons really helps us because they know how we work, we know how they work, so it’s a well-oiled machine at this point.

**John:** How big is the staff on Queen of the South?

**Dailyn:** Oh my gosh. We had eight writers this season I believe.

**John:** And of those writers is everyone writing at least one episode, or are there teams, or how does that work?

**Dailyn:** Everybody wrote their own episode. And a couple of episodes were co-written. But everybody got their own episode.

**John:** And Chad how big is the writing staff on NCIS: New Orleans?

**Chad:** On any given season we’re roughly 10 to 11 writers.

**John:** Great. And so of those everyone is going to be writing one or two or three? How does that work out number wise?

**Chad:** Yeah, I would say on average the upper levels will write upwards of three episodes, and then some newer, younger writers might be doing one or they’ll maybe co-write another. But we always try really hard with our support staff to give them an opportunity. So generally one or two of the support staff as well, the writer’s assistant or one of the PAs will be co-writing an episode, or in some circumstances they’ll even get to write an individual episode on their own.

**John:** Now, we talk about writing an episode, writing a script, but there’s actually writing that happens before then. So Chad can you talk about on NCIS: New Orleans what are the written documents that precede a script?

**Chad:** Yeah, so on NCIS: New Orleans we first have to offer up something to the network, just to sort of say that, hey, this is the story arena that we’re doing, which is generally a single page document which kind of just goes over what the crime is going to be and how we’re going to advance the individual character storylines. From there, once we it’s off the board it goes to an outline, and then we have a pretty regimented process where the writer of record they get to take that first stab at the outline. We have an upper level producer who is overseeing that episode. So then they’ll give notes on it first and let that writer kind of tinker with it before it then goes to our two showrunners. And then they bless it or sometimes they’ll take a little pass through their individual typewriter.

But then from there once that gets submitted to the network we get network notes. And then the writer goes off and they take a whack at the script. And usually it’ll go back and forth, again that supervising producer who is sort of overseeing it will be giving notes to the individual writer. We try, just again on a 24 episode show, our two co-showrunners are busy putting out all sorts of other fires all the time. So before any scripts really get to their hands we really try to get them as polished as possible, just because time is limited.

And so sometimes the producer who is overseeing things will kind of take a pass through it and then usually sometimes one of our two co-showrunners will kind of do the final little pass. You know, we’re lucky right now because in seven seasons we have kind of a top heavy staff and a bottom heavy staff. We don’t have a whole lot of middle ladder rung right now. So we’ve got a pretty good system where for the most part our two co-showrunners can be doing all of the other necessary work of putting out all the fires and keeping the train running.

**John:** Now talking about page count on these documents we’re talking about, so you said it’s a one-pager for the story area. How long is an outline for one of your episodes?

**Chad:** They used to be longer. They were upwards of 15 pages. We’ve kind of got them now pared down to about 10 to 11 pages, because the studio network kind of trusts that they know what we’re doing. And then our scripts generally come in, we shoot anywhere between 52 to 55 pages is kind of the maximum that we’ll be able to shoot in order to get the cut down.

**John:** Now, Dailyn, what is that process seem like on your side? So do you have a similar kind of story area document before it becomes an outline before it becomes a script? What is your process?

**Dailyn:** It’s pretty much the exact same thing. So we’ll have a story doc that’s about a page to a page and a half. And we’ll get notes on that. With us it’s a little harder since it’s not as easy – like here’s a crime. It’s so character-driven. So there’s a lot of like document-itis is what we call from like studio/network. It always ends up presenting more questions. You think it’s normally just simple, you just get the story document approved and move on, but it always raises a bunch of questions that you hopefully answer in outline. And our outlines are about 12 pages long. And then we get studio notes on that and network notes. And then we go out to script and our script page count is about the same as Chad, about 55. About that.

Our episodes are 42 minutes when they air. So, yeah, that’s about right.

**John:** Now, you talk about getting notes. What is the process of getting notes? Is it a notes documents or is that a phone call where you get the notes from the network and from the studio.

**Dailyn:** I mean, for us it’s always a phone call. Sometimes – as we’ve gone throughout the seasons and now we’re in season five, a lot of times if it’s not huge we’ll just an email from the network. The studio always likes to get on a call. I think it’s their way to be cheerleaders, or however they see it, you know. So they like getting on calls. I don’t think we’ve ever had actually just page notes from the studio. But the network will often just give us some thoughts in an email if they don’t have time to get on a phone.

**John:** Now both of you are on incredibly successful shows for your respective networks, but have you guys been in the process where things are not going well? And what is it like working on a show that is struggling? Do you have any insights on how it feels differently on those situations? Like Chad I know you’ve worked on some difficult shows. What is the challenge? What is the morale? What are the opportunities on a show that’s struggling?

**Chad:** I think it’s always a little bit different on every show. Thankfully my last two shows, NCIS: New Orleans and Castle, I came on board when those shows were well established. You know, came on board for season three of NCIS: New Orleans, but we also had a new showrunner who took over for that season. So, and he really wanted to put his stamp on it and kind of take the ship in a different direction, which for the most part we were lucky – we’re aligned where we are CBS studios for the CBS network. So often with notes, you know, they can just both jump on at the same time and they’re able to get on the same page before they give notes to us.

But I’ve also been on the challenging shows like Pushing Daisies I loved and adored and that was a – you know, I remember the first season of that show we were Warner Bros airing on ABC. And it was just such a unique vision from Bryan Fuller, the creator, that I think everybody was trying to kind of wrap their heads around what Bryan had his head wrapped around, which you know not everything was always aligned. And so they were definitely much longer individual phone calls with the studio and then with the network. And trying to sift through all those different notes so that we could try to please everyone as best that we could while at the same time kind of keeping what was just so special about that from Bryan’s mind.

So every show is just going to offer its own unique challenges and you never know until you join that staff.

**John:** Dailyn, what’s been your experience on a show that’s still finding its footing?

**Dailyn:** I’ve unfortunately been in a lot of situations where the dilemma in the show was actually within the ranks of the writer’s room and the showrunner. So I’ve been in a lot of shows that have had regime changes, new showrunners, meanwhile the show is doing well on the air but nobody would know the chaos behind the scenes. So I’ve unfortunately been in a few of those situations. And the reality is that Queen of the South was one of those situations. The first season was a mitigated disaster. It got put together very well in post. It was way over budget. Everybody thought it was going to be a failure and then it ended up being a huge hit for USA. So they searched for a new showrunner. After the first season I believe had two or three different showrunners. I can’t remember. Because the creators had not television experience and they paired them with a showrunner and it didn’t work out. And they tossed out a bunch of stuff that they shot. It was utter chaos.

When I say people were shooting scenes that were being emailed an hour before they were shooting, stuff like that. And I wasn’t on the show then. And then I came on second season when Natalie Chaidez took over and it was very much her trying to right that ship and actually do the work of finding a character arc for the season and what are we doing this season, what is the show thematically this season.

And so she worked on the show, I worked with her for season two and three, and then she decided to leave, so that’s another regime change. And that’s when I took over with Ben Lobato. And so what’s interesting in that situation is that there are just a lot of eyes on you. There’s a lot of pressure. People want to make sure they made the right decision picking first Natalie in those two seasons and then us. Are we people that are going to take the reins?

And I think we probably got a lot of scrutiny early on in our early episodes and a lot of probably maybe got over-noted just because there was for lack of a better word a paranoia or a worry or neurosis about new showrunners. And then we found our groove and we all figured it out and we started working together, the studio and the network and the writers and us, the showrunners, and we figured it out. But there were a lot of stressful moments where you’re thinking, oh shoot, am I messing this up? Is this a disaster waiting to happen? Because I’ve been on those shows that have just – I’ve been in a lot of midseason regime changes. It can be pretty stressful.

**John:** Yeah. I went through one of those midseason regime changes when I got fired off my show for the WB. And we talk about experience and you guys have experience, you’ve come up through the ranks, you know a writer’s room but you also know how to work on a set. And I came into the show that I created not having any of that experience. And Chad you were talking about how you guys are bottom heavy and top heavy, but there are not a lot of midlevel people. Is that a problem that we don’t have a lot of writers who have sort of some experience under their belt and some experience making TV shows? Because I do wonder about sort of this next generation of shows, whether we’re going to have people who know how to really run them. Dailyn are encountering any of this?

**Dailyn:** Yeah. I think that that’s a serious problem. I talk about this a lot, John, actually. Because more shows are remote and studios are not willing to pay for writers to travel, so that’s one problem. So you can’t send writers off to the set. Luckily on Queen of the South we did, so that was good, because then we got people having set experience. That’s a serious problem.

The shorter orders is also causing that as a problem. And so you finish your writer’s room, the writers are done, they’re done with their weeks, and now you’re shooting a show and you have no writers to go produce the episodes. So I fear that there’s going to be a problem in midlevel writers not having the right set experience. And then I fear that when they go up the ranks and become co-EPs and running their own shows that – I mean, some people just pick it up and get it and it’s amazing and they figure it out. But there is a lack of experience that’s going on and I think that those are – in my experience those are the two reasons that that’s happening.

**John:** Chad, are you seeing that on a more traditional procedural show?

**Chad:** Absolutely. I mean, I will echo what Dailyn is saying. I was fortunate enough that every single I’ve been on I was also able to be on set and get that experience. And that is wildly different than being in a writer’s room. And it takes a certain type of personality to work well in the writer’s room. But you also then have to have the correct on set personality, which is often something that you need to learn. In dealing with the problems that come up on set, you know, it just takes experience, which means just being on set for a certain number of hours.

And I know plenty of writers now who they have risen up that ladder, they’re co-executive producers and they have not once been on a single set for an episode that they’ve ever written. And I think we’re seeing this definitely in the streaming world, but it’s also starting to bleed over into the traditional network space where just with the speed of TV they decide, “Uh, it’s not worth it to have the writers down there.” And I really do find that writers are so crucial, you know, just the cohesiveness of the storytelling. And we’re lucky to work with so many great directors, but they’re focused on a million things. And there’s also dozens of tiny things over the course of shooting an episode that can really change the story that you’re trying to create within that. Having a writer there to kind of catch that and then to work with a director who oftentimes is very grateful I’ve found to be like, “Oh my gosh, I didn’t realize that’s what you guys were going for,” or that’s going to be a key point that’s going to affect an episode that’s shooting three episodes down the road. It’s just really necessary.

And so many writers, they just are not getting this experience and it’s going to be detrimental over the next few seasons for sure.

**John:** Now, making a television show in a normal world is difficult, but you guys are both in production right now on shows that are filming during a pandemic. So let’s talk a little bit about how that’s impacted you. We’ll start with the writer’s room. Dailyn, I assume that your writer’s room was virtual, or had you already written the season before stuff went south?

**Dailyn:** Yeah, so we luckily were very far ahead in scripts. We started shooting in March. End of February, I think, early March. So basically we were cross-boarding the first two episodes which is for people that don’t know you shoot them, sort of block shoot them. You’re shooting them at the same time with the same director. And we had a week left to finish those two episodes. And I was down in New Orleans, actually Chad and I we both – both of our shows shoot in New Orleans. And I had to shut down set. So all the shows were starting to shut down. And luckily we only had – we had already broken the rest of the season with the exception with the exception of the season finale which I was co-writing with the co-showrunner. So we were already broken, so that’s great.

So we just had a few Zoom conversations with the co-EP that was writing episode nine. So we actually were able to finish up all the episodes and have all production-ready scripts for when we started up again. And we just started up.

**John:** Now are you traveling down there as a writer on set? How are you guys handling production? And are you acknowledging that the pandemic is happening, or does it not happen in the world of your show?

**Dailyn:** A couple things. One thing is because we wrapped all of the writers we don’t have any writers to go produce the episodes. So it’s me and Ben. What we decided to do, because we’re both kind of concerned of travelling too much and adding another element to the Covid hell that’s going on, so we went down for the first episode. He went down first and then I went down, just to show our faces and for morale and show the crew and the cast that we’re there for them and we want to be part of the team.

And then we left because we have a director that used to be a producing director that’s directing episode three and four, so we felt like that was in good hands. And if there was an issue the lead actress of my show is an executive producer. So if there’s a massive issue she just calls us directly and says, “Hey, can we go through something?” So we felt like that was in good hands.

So Ben will probably go down in a couple weeks and then I’ll go down after Christmas. And then we’ll probably go down for the season finale. So that’s basically how we’re doing it. We feel like the actors like having us there, so they’re bummed that we’re not there the whole time. But this is sort of the compromise that we came up with to make us feel like we’re involved but not living in New Orleans for the unforeseeable future.

**John:** Now, Chad, I’m flipping past from watching NCIS: New Orleans and I see everyone on that show is wearing masks. It occurs to me like, wow, this must be a dream in post because you can just ADR them saying anything. You can just have Scott Bakula standing there saying whatever – he can just be going yada yada and you can put the words in in post.

Talk to me about sort of your writer’s room, because this all had to happen during the pandemic, and moving into production. So what has that been like on your show?

**Chad:** Yeah, I mean, it’s been a challenge like for any show that is trying to get back to work during a global pandemic. We had to shut down like one scene into shooting. It was episode 21 last season. We had broken the entire rest of the season already, but we ended up just kind of having to scrap it. We were lucky that episode 20 actually had one of our character’s storylines had kind of hit a high point, so it sort of served a little bit as pseudo finale for the season.

But you know we just jumped right back into the room in June. And the first question really was whether or not we were going to acknowledge the pandemic or not. And after talking about things for a few days, but really it was with talking with production down in New Orleans that we realized that by acknowledging the pandemic it would allow us to actually potentially start shooting sooner, because if we’re shooting people onscreen who are wearing masks and who look like they’re socially distanced they also will be in real life as we’re filming them.

And so that was a way for us to kind of safely get back into production right away. You know, we had all the delays. We were waiting for the whitepaper and, you know, our production team in New Orleans did an amazing job, basically spent all of summer gathering PPE and getting everything ready. But the first two episodes we did we decided to do flashback episodes. And we flashed back to the end of March when the pandemic was really starting to catch fire in New Orleans. And it really did. After New York, New Orleans was one of the really early hot spots because Covid started to circulate during Mardi Gras. So you can imagine how quickly it just started to spread.

And we really wanted to acknowledge that for the city because New Orleans really is one of the main characters in our show. And so we sort of devised this two-parter that allowed us to start shooting right away but to be able to, again, just safely shoot. And one of the things that we kind of adapted to in terms of safety protocols was we started designing our season by doing every two episodes was a two-parter. And we sort of saw them as mini movies in which we were also able to bring down the same director who was directing two episodes at a time. And so that then allowed us to have fewer people who were having to come down and quarantine. Even guest actors and guest cast, we were able to cast people who would carry over from one episode to the next.

So the whole goal was just how do we reduce our footprint. And so fewer actors, fewer people on set. And so we’ve been able to do that pretty successfully. You know, our testing protocols are rigid. Everyone gets tested pretty much four times a week down there. You know, if something does happen we’re able to isolate them quickly. But thankfully we have not had a shutdown yet.

As far as writers, you know, reducing our footprint does mean not sending our writers down. We did have one of our sort of two-parters which were episodes three and four which were also trying to tackle some of the more topical issues as well in terms of Black Lives Matter and defunding the police. And so it was a very sensitive two-parter that we did send one of our co-EPs down who is just a really fantastic writer and really sort of clued into everything. And she was able to be the one person on set to kind of help out when necessary.

But aside from that, you know, we’ve been lucky. Again, we’re season seven so we have a stable of directors we’ve worked with who know the show, and who also feel comfortable with the writers. And they’re able to call up anyone 24/7. We’ve even done sometimes like FaceTime of rehearsals on set, you know, if it’s kind of a key scene so that the writer back in LA can really make sure that, yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re getting all the moments that we need.

So, you know, we’ve adapted and so far – knock on wood – it’s working and we haven’t had to shut down yet.

**John:** Now you haven’t had to shut down the set, but you had sort of your own personal shutdown, because you got Covid recently.

**Chad:** I did.

**John:** Can you tell us about that? Your experience trying to work through this and what Covid was like for you?

**Chad:** Yeah. It was definitely a shock because you know me…

**John:** I should say that Chad is paranoid and Chad does all the protocols fully and still somehow got it.

**Chad:** Yes. I am mister OCD and was definitely stocking up back in January because I kind of felt like this thing could get worse. I never imagined it would get as bad as it has become. But, yeah, it was kind of a shock when I got it, but was very fortunate. We were doing a very small pod with my family and one other family because we both have daughters who are only children and we just wanted to give the kids somebody to be studying with every day.

But to try to keep things safe we were – each of the adults we were kind of on a rolling testing schedule where one adult would get tested once a week, just to try to catch anything. And we were able to do that. I was kind of shocked where I get tested on a Saturday and then Monday morning signed onto my email and saw that I was positive, which was definitely terrifying. But I immediately just went outside and my fiancé had to call the parents of the other child who was here studying with my daughter that day. And everybody kind of immediately isolated. And I basically spent two straight weeks just in my bedroom. Walked away from everybody.

But even on day 14 when I got tested again I was still positive, so we followed the protocols and did another two week quarantine. So basically for 30 days straight I was locked in my master bedroom, kind of away from the world. But it worked. And my fiancé and my daughter, neither of them fell sick, nor did my co-parent or the family that we were doing our little pod with. So we feel really lucky that I didn’t pass it along to anyone.

**John:** One thing I want to stress for listeners is that it’s not just that you tested positive. You got really sick. Can you tell us about what it felt like in relation to other illnesses you’ve had?

**Chad:** Yeah, it was definitely the strangest illness I’ve ever been through. I kind of had a tickle in my nose on Sunday evening. I thought, ah, it’s probably allergies. But then Monday when I got my positive test back, you know, by Monday evening it really did start to hit me. And I was fortunate and lucky in that I was only running a fever for about one day. I never had the shortness of breath. I had a pulse oximeter that I was constantly checking every few others and was staying at a stable level with that.

But it was just the exhaustion. Like nothing I’ve ever felt. I mean, imagine the worst flu double or triple. Unfortunately, you know, right now when you’re just sort of isolating at home you treat it like a flu and over the counter meds and just a lot of fluids. And I said that was the tricky Catch-22 is that you need to be drinking as many fluids as you can which means having to use the restroom very often. And that ten-foot trip from my bed to the bathroom was perilous and would take about five minutes each way just to make sure I wasn’t toppling over and cracking my head open on the corner of the sink.

So, yeah, those ten days were just very, very exhausting. You know, just sleeping as much as I could, which also was the challenge in that I was starting preproduction on episodes five and six which was a two-parter. And I wrote episode five, another writer had written episode six, but I was the executive producer who was overseeing the two of them. So it was just – everybody down in New Orleans on the production side they got very used to seeing my bedroom and seeing me propped up in bed as I was just trying to get through prep.

**John:** Oy. And you’re feeling better now?

**Chad:** I am, yes. I thankfully at the end, you know, even though it was not fun I caught very much a mild case of it and I’ve been able to bounce back pretty quickly and 100 percent now.

**John:** Knowing that you guys were going to be on the show I emailed out to our Premium subscribers asking if they had any specific questions about one-hour dramas and people sent in with some great questions. Let’s invite our producer Megana Rao on to talk us through some of these questions because there’s some good ones here. Megana, what do you have for us?

**Megana Rao:** Great. So, Pierre from France had a question about how US network television deals with politics in its series.

**Pierre:** Hello, thank you. My name is Pierre. I’m a French writer based in Berlin. I have a question about politics in network series because I’m often amazed how American series can deal with very current hot topics, social issues, ripped from the headline subjects for procedural episodes. I’m thinking of course about The Good Wife or The Good Fight. But even like Law & Order and every legal and cop drama I can think of are never afraid to go quite frontally into hot political topics. How do you deal with those? How do you choose those? Do you make sure it’s balanced or on the contrary are you doing it to show your opinion? Do you think it’s a mission for us writers to deal with these topics and put it on TV in primetime? How do you deal with a network with potential self-censorship? Because here in Europe I feel a lot of networks are still shy and risk adverse with these kind of topics in primetime entertainment shows. So I’m really curious how you deal with it and it’s probably more difficult than it sounds. Thank you.

**John:** So, Dailyn, maybe we’ll start with you. So Chad had mentioned that this season they were looking at Black Lives Matter, they were looking at police violence, obviously the pandemic. With your show how much do politics come into things? How sensitive do you have to be to those types of issues?

**Dailyn:** Season four we started grappling with issues about government corruption and sort of subtle story about race relations between Latinos and African Americans and sort of how people in power sort of benefit from minorities at each other’s throats. And so we sort of played that as part of a storyline in season four.

But our show – I don’t think USA – whenever I would throw in a political joke here and there they tend to ask us to remove it. So the stuff that we did was very what I think is pretty subtle and it was OK sort of in storyline playing it as conflict but if there was something that was very pointed, like I remember I wrote a joke for one of the characters, Pote, about saying he really didn’t trust Russians. And someone said why and he goes, “They stole the election.” We had to cut the line.

And so, you know, anything that was too blatantly political I think USA had us sort of move away from it. But our show is inherently kind of political in a way because it is about a Mexican woman in America that runs a cartel. And our biggest thing for us when we took over season four was that most of the show was dealing with border violence and Mexican on Mexican violence. And because of the election of the president we made a very conscious decision to shift the narrative of the show. That’s when we decided to move to New Orleans and make the show a little bit more of a slightly traditional organized crime show and lean more towards classic mob tropes and a mafia storyline to get away from the Narcos of it all. Because of the election and because of the atmosphere in the country. So that’s when we moved to New Orleans and decided to do this storyline about a corrupt judge and the corrupt system and who are the bigger crooks, the drug dealers or the corrupt government.

So that’s what we did and they let us do that. And inherently that’s political. I think whenever it was very, very specific lines and stuff like that is when they would feel slightly uncomfortable. And it was always about, you know, making sure that we didn’t alienate a certain audience.

**John:** I can see that. Chad, for something like NCIS: New Orleans I perceive CBS as being very conservative, not the people who necessarily work there but just the audience for CBS shows being fairly conservative. So if you’re talking about something like Black Lives Matter how do you discuss that in the room and how do you try to narrativize that in a crime procedural show?

**Chad:** It’s a challenge but we always start with our character city New Orleans. And New Orleans has a very large Black population. And there has been a history at different points. I mean, at one point we had talked a lot about the ideas of consent decrees in cities that are put under those. And so we try to look at well what’s actually happening in New Orleans and how can we kind of tell an honest story about that, while at the same time never talking about parties.

You know, we never mention anyone being a Republican or a Democrat or Independent. We just kind of stay away from that and just try to tell the real stories that happened. We had in one of our early seasons a big storyline about a very corrupt mayor of New Orleans. And part of that was a nod to New Orleans had gone through long histories of corruption within the political ranks, but more at sort of that local level.

But yeah when we are looking at real issues that are happening on a nationwide scale in terms of systemic inequality it’s, OK, we know this is happening but how do we boil it down to what is happening in New Orleans and how is it affecting the population here? And that always allows then to tackle a political story, but when that sort of feels small and local. But since we do have an audience that serves the masses across the entire nation and really the world, where we are popular in many different nations, you know, for us it feels like, OK, where can we as a writer’s room sort of slip in what we would like to see happening in the world and what we would hope. But even in the writer’s room we’re very aware to sort of go, OK, what are the two sides to this and where is that middle ground that everybody can usually say, hey, that’s not right. You know, a corrupt cop, nobody, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on nobody wants a corrupt cop running around town. You know, so then how can we wrap a story around stopping that one bad apple.

And that’s a way that we feel like we can sort of please everyone but also showcase a story that everybody would, yes, hope that the world would want, you know, bad cops to be rooted out.

**Megana:** Great. So Alison asked is there anything fundamentally different between a pilot for a one-hour drama and the first episode of a limited series?

**John:** Dailyn, how about you tackle that? Do you think there’s something different between a one-hour pilot and the first episode of a limited series?

**Dailyn:** I mean, I’ve never written a limited series, but I would have to think that not really, because you really are setting up the world, setting up the character conflict at the beginning of the story. So I don’t know how different it could possibly be. I don’t know. Chad, have you ever worked on a limited series?

**Chad:** I haven’t. Not on a limited series myself either. But, I mean, I just feel like everything is storytelling in terms of you’re aiming toward some sort of climax. And whether that’s closing out something like in Mazin’s Chernobyl, you know, he knew what he was aiming toward. But even on I think shows like ours you kind of have an idea at the end of the season like, oh, what are the seeds that we need to plant in the pilot that are going to kind of point us in the direction of this is where we’re headed. And depending on how many episodes you have to tell that story you’re going to be planting more or fewer of those seeds.

**John:** So Dailyn let’s say you’re trying to staff your show and you’re reading scripts. Maybe you’re reading scripts for Wonder Girl. If you’re reading a one-hour script would you rather read something that has act breaks in it or something that has no act breaks and is more like a streaming one-hour.

**Dailyn:** I honestly don’t have a preference. For me it’s all about is this well-written? Is it an interesting character? Is the dialogue popping off the page? Does the story work? Because ultimately even if it doesn’t have act breaks you can read a script and realize that the structure naturally has breaks to it. Do you know what I mean? So, I don’t have a preference seeing act breaks or not act breaks when I’m reading.

**John:** Chad, if you’re writing something, because I’ve seen over the years you’ve written other pilots for things, you’ve written other stuff as samples, do you write stuff now with act breaks or without act breaks?

**Chad:** It very much depends on who I’m writing a pilot for. I wrote a pilot for HBO Max which was a delight to not have to have act breaks in there. And I was able to go straight through to page 55. But there of course was those natural ebbs and flows of the story and those highpoints which would have been traditional act breaks. And even on something like over at HBO Max they did sort of tell me that think about where those act breaks might be because very often no matter what you’re writing for whatever streaming service it could end up when you go into the foreign market on a different service that does have commercial breaks in a way.

So, you know, I just think for me whether I’m putting the act break in or not it’s where is the natural point in the story where I need to be bringing the audience to some new high point in the story. So I think they’re always naturally there for me.

**Megana:** OK, Cool, and I think Vito asks a great follow up question. He says, “I’ve received the note that my pilot didn’t have enough to support multiple seasons, but I feel like I pack in so many nods to potential storylines. I don’t know what I’m missing. When reading a pilot how do you judge the engine of a show? What do you look for to give an idea of the story potential and longevity?”

And I guess I also have the question when you guys are staffing is this something that you look for in the samples that you’re reading? And also in your work in projects that you’re developing how do you think about the engines for your shows? Because especially Chad you have to come up with so many episodes of them.

**John:** Yeah. What makes reading a one-hour script make you feel like, OK, this could go for seven seasons versus this is just a ten and done? What’s the difference there?

**Chad:** That is I think a really, really great question. And I think the key words that I look for are story engine. And for me it’s like every time I even look at trying to pitch something of my own, or coming up with an idea, I’m often asking myself, OK, what is episode 100? And that’s a tough question because you’re looking then at four to five seasons. And if I don’t know what episode 100 might be that’s when I really have to question like, OK, is this an idea that is sustainable for network? Or is this something that maybe only goes for three seasons? And is that then a story that works better in the streaming sphere?

So I think that is – it’s like when I’m reading samples, especially for something like NCIS: New Orleans, I’m trying to get that sense of is there a story engine there. Do they know kind of where they’re going – even in reading that pilot is there enough of those little Easter eggs there where I can sort of go, oh OK, I can sort of see what the climax for the season is going to be. Because I do, I unfortunately read a lot of pilots which are really, really great stories but I’m sort of sitting there going like this isn’t a series. This is a movie. Or this is Queen’s Gambit. This is a wonderful six-episode limited series, but this isn’t something that’s going to sustain for the traditional – you know, I think at a minimum now we’re kind of looking at ten-episode seasons. So, yeah, it’s just all about what is that story engine that you’re holding onto that you can keep coming back to episode by episode.

**John:** Now, Dailyn, you’re having a different engine for your Wonder Girl series. Is that something you’re thinking about right now as you’re writing this pilot, setting up the kind of stuff that can go on for 100 episodes?

**Dailyn:** Yeah, I mean, 100 percent. I think to add to what Chad was saying, it’s not just story engine. Honestly sometimes it’s just premise. I mean, I’ve lucked out on the fact that this is a premise people know. This is Wonder Girl, you know. She eventually will be the new Wonder Woman in the DC universe, right? So you already have sort of a built in premise to the character and the world and it is her fighting to save the world. And there’s a built in premise because you know every week it’s going to be like she’s going to fight someone, she’s going to save somebody. So there’s a built in premise and story engine sort of to the show.

But that being said, you know, I still have to figure out who is the big bad this season. And is this the bad guy she’s going to fight for two seasons, or is it one season and he’s gone and you bring in a new bad guy or bad girl for season two? And what are those fights? And what are the fights for her as Wonder Girl versus what are her struggles and fights as Yara Flor, the human superhero? So you sort of have to figure out what are those challenges going forward from the pilot. And setting up, OK, this is going to be her human struggle for the season. This is her superhero struggle for the season.

So this has been a very interesting process for me because there’s a duality of character. And then at what point do those two things meet and become sort of one in the same? And these two identities meet at some point. It’s very interesting. Superhero stuff is really interesting character work.

**John:** And so the pilot that you’re writing has to show this is going to be the engine that can drive the superhero story for a hundred episodes, but also make it clear that this is the character story, the human story and sort of this is the character who grows and changes over the course of that time.

**Dailyn:** Right.

**John:** And you look at the Super Girl pilot, and the Super Girl pilot did a very good job of both of those threads. And so when you say that there’s a premise that’s sustainable, I know what a Wonder Girl show can be. And so the specificity you bring to your version of it is what’s going to make it unique and special. But there’s underlying potential there that’s really clear.

**Dailyn:** That’s right.

**John:** Cool. Megana, thank you for these questions. Thank you to everybody who wrote in with questions. It’s always nice when we have things that are tailored to our guests, so we’re going to try to do this more in the future. Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Of course, thank you.

**John:** All right, it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing this week is this new translation of Beowulf by Maria Dahvana Headley. It’s really just fantastic. And I’ve tried to read Beowulf so many times and I tried to read that Seamus one that had the chain mail head on it. And Beowulf is a really cool story but it’s just really hard to get into. And what I love about this translation is it’s just very much common vernacular speech.

And so you can just actually follow what’s happening in it. It still feels like verse. It still feels like a person who is telling you a story. It’s just really great. So I’m about halfway through it and just greatly enjoying it.

If you’ve avoided reading Beowulf because it just seems like torture really check this out and check out the first two pages and see if it sparks for you. But I’ve really enjoyed it. So, it’s Beowulf: A New Translation by Maria Dahvana Headley.

Chad, do you have a One Cool Thing to share?

**Chad:** I do have a One Cool Thing. And it may not be particularly cool to your larger audience, but for the newer WGA members who for the first time ever have qualified for WGA healthcare, it is now open enrollment season through the end of the year on December 31. And I have always kind of been a little bit of a WGA health insurance evangelist to younger and newer members to the guild because not a lot of people know, and it’s something I always talk to the younger and newer writers on the various staffs I’ve been on who are for the first time qualified for this really amazing healthcare we have.

But they often don’t know that the WGA healthcare it kind of works both as a PPO and also as an HMO option. And one of the things that I always tell them that not a lot of people know is that we have this $400 deductible that you have to meet every year before the insurance kicks in. And, look, if you’re an assistant who was maybe thrown a script for the first time ever and you finally have this healthcare, or somebody who is starting out, that’s a lot of money. And there’s also a way that you can really maximize your benefits and save yourself a lot of money which is by using the HMO portion of our healthcare which is called The Industry Health Network, TIHN. And we actually have these individual centers, I believe there’s four of them across the LA area. I use the Bob Hope Medical Center on La Brea all the time. There’s also the Toluca Lake Medical Center, which is great.

And the amazing thing if you go through this HMO part, The Industry Health Network, is that you show up, you find a great primary care doctor there, and there’s plenty of them, and it’s only $10 a pop to go see a doctor. And that doesn’t ever get counted against your deductible. And then if they have to give you a referral to a specialist as long as you start your journey through the initial Industry Health Network and you get your referral from one of those doctors every time you go see that specialist it’s only $10.

And so a lot of people have doctors who they love and they just want to use the PPO version of it, which is great. That always does cover 85% of the cost. But that other 15% can really, really add up.

**John:** Yeah. You should listen to Chad because Chad has always been the person in my life who has like researched all the options and found the one that makes the most cost-benefit analysis work out. So, trust Chad and definitely check it out. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to what Chad is talking about in terms of the FAQs for like which plan you should choose if you’re newly going into the WGA health insurance.

Dailyn, what is your One Cool Thing?

**Dailyn:** Mine is not writer related. My One Cool Thing is that my husband is a visual artist and a graphic designer, so I’ve always super been into art, museums, all that kind of stuff. And during the apex of the Black Lives Matter movement during the pandemic and all the protests and everything I really used my social media to try and expose and sort of promote African American visual artists. And I found this amazing artist. Her name is Calida Garcia Rawles. And she does these phenomenal paintings of African American men and women in water. And they’re hyper realistic. They’re really, really beautiful. And she is – you can see a couple of her works at the Wallis Annenberg Center for Performing Arts in Beverly Hills, unfortunately only until the 29th November.

But if you would like to look her up and check out her art, I think she’s really special. And I just think it’s really important to support new voices in art. So, that’s my One Cool Thing.

**John:** Yeah, I’m Googling this as you’re talking and her images are absolutely stunning. And so you look at them and it feels like you’re – almost like you’re looking at islands in a beautiful ocean.

**Dailyn:** They’re phenomenal.

**John:** Yeah. So, great. And just tranquil and terrific. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to that as well. It looks like Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of his books maybe uses her imagery as well.

**Dailyn:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** That’s great. And that’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alex Winder. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions like the ones we answered today, but for short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin, I am @johnaugust.

Chad, you’re on Twitter, correct?

**Chad:** I am. I am @chadgcreasey with an SEY at the end.

**John:** And Dailyn are you on Twitter?

**Dailyn:** I am. I’m @dailynrod on Twitter.

**John:** Excellent. We have t-shirts. They’re great. They’re at Cotton Bureau. You can still get them in time for Christmas if you order now.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has a lot 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 ambient TV. Chad, Dailyn, thank you so much for being on the show. I actually learned a ton this week so thank you very much.

**Dailyn:** You’re welcome and thank you for having me.

**Chad:** Yeah, thanks so much. This was a blast.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, we’re back and here in this bonus segment this is something that Megana actually found, so I’m going to invite her back on to set us up for this article about ambient TV.

**Megana:** Great. So this article is called Emily in Paris and the Rise of Ambient TV by Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker. And it came out about two weeks ago. And in the article he basically says that Netflix is pioneering a new genre of television, ambient TV, meant to be played in the background with low dramatic stakes that you can kind of just keep on as you are on your phone and scrolling through Instagram or Twitter or cleaning around the house. And he also brings up the new slate of reality makeover shows that Netflix has, you know, shows about organizing your closet, wardrobe makeover sort of things. And he also talks about soap operas and sort of the history of what he calls ambient television through different media.

**John:** Yeah. So one of the things I liked about his description of it is that some of these shows are sort of like Instagram but on TV, where it’s like Instagram is very kind of low engagement. You’re looking at it but there’s no stakes to Instagram. It’s just something that is sort of there in the background. And I think about you guys and your shows. You have storylines that you sort of have to follow. You are asking the audience to actually pay attention to them, whereas some of these other shows don’t seem to require attention.

Dailyn, as you look at this, what’s your take on ambient TV? Do you think it’s a meaningful thing to be thinking about?

**Dailyn:** Well, I have to be honest, I love ambient TV. [laughs] And I love that there’s a term that now I can use to refer to it. I watch a lot of HGTV. And I watch all those Chef’s Tables and all that kind of stuff. I like ambient TV in that world.

When it starts going into the Emily in Paris, which I tried to watch, that loses me. Because that really should have a narrative that’s interesting. When it’s more like a makeover show or a reality show like that that’s just sort of – like I watched a lot of Grand Designs where you go to see these houses and I can kind of be checking emails while I’m watching it. I find it very soothing. But I have this weird thing with television, because when I grew up watching TV when I was a little kid my mom and dad didn’t speak English and so they would just plop me in front of the TV and it was like my babysitter. But I used it as an emotional blanket, like whenever I would have a tantrum or get upset I’d turn on the TV and I’ve have my blanket and I would suck my thumb and I’d watch TV.

So TV is already this kind of soothing ambient thing. So those shows really appeal to this deep psychological part of my brain when I was a kid and could just soothe myself. So I think those shows are great. I’m just a little bit concerned with sort of the more Emily in Paris, like that didn’t appeal to me as much because I wanted more story. I liked the production value of it, but it felt a little too light and airy for me if I was really going to sit and commit to a series like that that has an arc. You know what I mean?

But the other stuff, the HGTV stuff and that kind of stuff I can just eat that up all day long.

**John:** Now, Chad, so we’re talking about HGTV which clearly has a formula, like you’re going to look at three houses and you’re going to fix this up and the home owner is going to be just delighted at the end and the episode is over. There’s really no stakes to it.

But I look at a CBS crime procedural which one could argue is similar in a way. There is a clear resolution. The evil will be punished. It’ll get to an end. Do you see any of these crime procedurals, like the one you’re working on, as functioning like ambient TV?

**Chad:** I don’t think that we would ever design or anyone would design a scripted show to be ambient TV. I mean, when you first sort of mentioned this and when I was reading through the article, I mean, I know Craig is not here but I was having umbrage wanting to defend writers who spend hours and lots of brain space coming up with the twists and turns of a story.

That being said, I do recognize and it’s something that we talk a lot about on our show. Which is that there’s never a desire to be ambient TV, but we know that people’s lives are busy. And I often bring up my own brother who watches our show but he’s a single father with four kids. And so at any moment he’s going to be helping one with homework and nuking dinner for another and getting another ready for bed, and so he’s only maybe able to catch every other minute of the episode. But by the end of it he still wants to feel satisfied. He wants to feel like he was maybe able to guess who the killer was. Or know where, oh yeah, I can see where that’s where they were going with those two characters.

And so, you know, it’s often that we sort of bake that into our formula that at the top of every act we kind of have a reset scene, you know, where we’re back in the squad room and we’re catching our characters up but we’re really catching our audience up on, OK, this is what we know about the crime right now. This is where the case is. And we kind of restate for them this is what we know and this is where we’re going so that if you happened to have missed a couple of minutes out of that previous act you don’t necessarily feel like the entire story has been ruined for you.

**John:** And that also matches up to an HGTV home makeover show. We’ll constantly recap what has just happened. And it feels necessary for that form.

Now, Chad, you had some umbrage but Megana you actually had a stronger reaction to this piece as well. So tell me about what you felt reading this.

**Megana:** Yeah. So I think like my biggest issue was that I felt like it was unfair to group Emily in Paris with these other unscripted shows. And to say that the things that Emily is dealing with drift into the background and the dramatic points don’t matter, I think, you know, a part of the reason why this show resonated with so many people was because it has that element of escapism and fantasy and sort of like wish fulfillment. And so I understand like the criticism around that, but I think to say that the story of a young woman moving to a foreign country and sort of navigating coming of age there, to say that that journey doesn’t matter, to me that’s like the hero’s journey and I think there’s a long history of cultural critics dismissing stories centered around women as unimportant or having low stakes.

And to me that just feels like unexamined misogyny a little bit.

**John:** Yeah. I think it’s good that you bring that up. You can imagine the period version of this story would seem to be more important, or the period version of the story with a man involved would seem to be more important and be like it’s about a young person’s self-discovery over the course of moving to Paris. If it’s Hemingway then it’s like, oh, then it matters. But if it’s this young woman moving to Paris it doesn’t matter as much. It seems low stakes because you personally don’t care, but that doesn’t mean that you are necessarily the only audience for something.

**Megana:** Exactly.

**John:** Now, this idea of ambient TV comes from Brian Enos’ description of ambient music, which is music that you don’t even have to listen to. You don’t have to actively listen. And definitely I noticed with me and Mike watching TV there are certain shows where I’m fully focused on what’s happening. So I watch The Crown and I’m fully watching The Crown, or Game of Thrones, because you actually have to engage. But there’s other shows that honestly I’ve got my iPad out and I’m playing some Hearthstone while it’s happening and that’s fine. I don’t have to direct all my attention to it.

And I think there’s a place for both things. I’m not a person who watches repeats. I don’t watch repeats of The Golden Girls. But some shows fill that same kind of space. You know, one of the shows I’ve loved over this pandemic has been Selena + Chef which is Selena Gomez learning how to cook. I mean, the stakes could not be lower except for her terrible knife skills. And yet it’s really comforting, the ability to wind down and not have to worry about something, or feel like I’m going to miss something. It’s like, nope, she’s going to make this dish. It’s going to turn out pretty well and Papa will enjoy it.

So there’s something nice to be said about that. And the fact that we have so much quality TV that’s better than ever before and so cinematic doesn’t mean that everything has to be up to that level. Dailyn what are your go-tos for ambient TV? What do you go to when you need some comforting?

**Dailyn:** Yeah, I mean, like I said I really can turn on that HGTV, and I also watch a lot of Bravo. I’m from New York and New Jersey, so I’m going to watch The Real Housewives of New York and The Real Housewives of New Jersey. I just am. And I can answer emails and do my taxes while that’s on in the background. So that’s a bit of my go-to.

I definitely have found myself, my husband and I right now during the pandemic we find ourselves going towards comfort shows also. I realized this morning my husband woke up and turned on the TV and I think it’s on Hulu, he just literally started watching Ted Lasso again from the beginning. I think because that’s an example of something, it’s not ambient TV, you really have to pay attention, but it’s very soothing and it’s a palate cleanser after everything we’ve just been through for the last few months.

But for sure I’m definitely somebody that likes watching these home renovation shows and some of these reality shows when they’re not too crazy.

**John:** And, Chad, do you have any go-tos for ambient TV?

**Chad:** Yeah. Again, you know me very well and I tend to be a completist. So if I start something and I’m hooked for a little bit I will – I watch television with purpose. So, again, I don’t want to dismiss any of the writers who have been, I know, putting in so many hours to create things. So I don’t l know if it’s so much ambient, but similar list to Dailyn, Ted Lasso when I had Covid I think made Covid feel not nearly as horrible, because it was just this bright shining little star of television for me. As well as my fiancé and I we had never watched Schitt’s Creek. And so that was just the comfort we needed during the pandemic.

You, John, turned us onto The Good Place and we’re almost all caught up with that. And being child of the ‘80s and ‘90s I think Cobra Kai I just think is this little piece of brilliance in terms of how they’ve taken something old and just completely turned it on its head.

You know, if there’s anything I would say ambient that I watch it’s because I have a daughter who is now being home-schooled all the time, Disney+ has been our saving grace. And she has discovered all sorts of shows, you know, sort of like how your daughter had her–

**John:** Jessie?

**Chad:** Jessie. And Bunked. And there are things that we can watch together that I can definitely be on my phone and signing emails and she’s watching again and again. But every now and then I kind of get sucked into it as well and it’s just sort of delightful to have during these crazy times.

**John:** Megana, I’ll leave this with you since you proposed the topic. Do you think ambient TV is a meaningful concept and if so what recommendations would you have for ambient TV?

**Megana:** I do think it’s a meaningful concept because I do think that there is a place for shows that you have on in the background to kind of keep you company. So I guess my go-to for this sort of thing, I don’t like the negative connotation of ambient TV because I think even reality television producers are amazing at their jobs, but there are times where I just want to watch something that doesn’t have high stakes because we already live in a world with so much going on.

So, sometimes I’ll put Say Yes to the Dress on because I want the worst outcome of what I’m watching is that that person doesn’t find their perfect wedding dress on that day. And I feel like that’s all that I can handle in terms of conflict. And then in terms of comforting television have watched Ted Lasso like three times. And I’m so grateful for Schitt’s Creek and being able to work my way through that.

**John:** Excellent. Thank you all very much for this and hopefully this was some good ambient podcasting for you to get you through your day. Thanks all.

 

Links:

* [Beowulf: A New Translation](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08MKNSL7Z/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) by Maria Dahvana Headley
* [WGA Health Plans](https://wgaplans.org/health/healthfaqs.html)
* [Calida Garcia Rawles](https://www.calidagarciarawles.com/pressure/lck83elskowjitdujiq10wiulbu8tb)
* [“Emily in Paris” and the Rise of Ambient TV](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/emily-in-paris-and-the-rise-of-ambient-tv) for the New Yorker by Kyle Chayka
* [Dailyn Rodriguez](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1335519/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/dailynrod)
* [Chad Gomez Creasey](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1548657/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/chadgcreasey)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Alex Winder ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/478standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 477: Counting Clowns, Transcript

November 25, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2020/counting-clowns).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 477 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at the first three pages of listeners’ scripts and offer our honest feedback. Now, Craig, last week we had Scott Frank on the show and we looked at the first two pages of his script and I think we helped him.

**Craig:** Well, they were garbage. And he has huge problems. The “we see” just right off the bat.

**John:** Yeah. So hopefully we won’t see any “we sees” in the three pages we’re going to look at, but maybe we’ll find some other things that we can help these writers with.

**Craig:** I just hope that, and I can’t imagine how, these writers won’t be vastly better.

**John:** It’s hard to be worse than Scott Frank.

**Craig:** Scott Mediocre Frank. [laughs]

**John:** We also have important updates on Uno, Wonder Woman, and whatever is happening with the agencies.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And in our bonus segment for Premium members Craig I want to springboard off the new autobiographies we’ve gotten from Barack Obama and Rachel Bloom to talk about autobiography as a form and what we take from it and what we would do with our own autobiographies were we to write them.

**Craig:** I imagine that Rachel Bloom has just listened to you say that and is doing a little dance. Because Barack Obama and Rachel Bloom.

**John:** I mean, I think it’s awesome that Rachel’s book is out, but also if you’re going to pick a week to release your book maybe not with the incredibly popular former President of the United States. I don’t know.

**Craig:** You know what? I feel like there’s a solid overlap and yet also the people that like Barack Obama and like Rachel Bloom also have the capacity to absorb two autobiographies. I mean, she’s going to be fine.

**John:** I bought both.

**Craig:** There you go. Et voila.

**John:** Et voila.

**Craig:** Et voila.

**John:** All right, there was some other important news happening this week. Wonder Woman 1984 is going to be released on Christmas Day, both in theaters and for free on HBO Max. So basically it’s not a premium upgrade on HBO Max. I think this was the right choice. It was kind of inevitable. I’m sad not to see Wonder Woman in theaters because I saw the first Wonder Woman when I was living in France. I saw it twice in cinemas. It’s the only movie I saw twice in cinemas while I was there.

**Craig:** Le cinema.

**John:** But I love it. But I’m also really looking forward to seeing it on Christmas Day.

**Craig:** This is I think going to be looked at in the history of movies as a thing. It’s actually a thing. Like the first PG-13 movie I think was Red Dawn. I think it was Red Dawn.

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** Widely released one. And so, anyway, this feels like a thing because I don’t know how we get back from this. I don’t know, given the way that this is all proceeding. It’s not that somehow theaters are going to be endlessly drenched in Covid. Hopefully we all get that vaccine and we return back to life. It’s just that once you let this toothpaste out of the tube it’s hard to put back in.

**John:** Yeah. So my counter example to that would be Aladdin. So, Aladdin made $1 billion worldwide in theaters before it had its huge life on video. And so I do think that there are going to be some movies where – and Disney which is putting some stuff on streaming. It’s definitely not putting the Marvel movies on streaming because they know how much money they can make in theaters. I do think there’s going to be some movies that it’ll still be worthwhile for studios to say, “You know what, even to support our streaming service, even to do the pay-per-view at home, we’re going to make more money getting it in those theaters.”

But for some movies, I don’t know.

**Craig:** Well, the economics is kind of fascinating. So a movie like Aladdin that makes $1 billion all across the world still has this massive marketing budget that has to be deducted against that. And they just don’t have that budget or need it when they’re putting it on their service. It’s just much easier to sort of self-advertise.

And, of course, they’re not splitting a dime when they’re on streaming with exhibitors, whereas they – I mean, how much of that $1 billion was earned in China, for instance?

**John:** Yeah. A big chunk of it.

**Craig:** Well, of that big chunk Disney probably got about 20%.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So that’s the real interesting thing. How do you make more money with Aladdin? By the old method or do you put it on Disney+ but say, OK, this is Disney++. If you want Aladdin you just have to give us $3.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I think they might make more weirdly that way.

**John:** And yet though big theatrical releases and the marketing you do for those big theatrical releases also feed toys and feed a lot of other stuff that’s sort of knock-on value added stuff. So if Aladdin had just debuted on streaming the way Mulan did I don’t think you would have sold the toys that I think Aladdin probably did. I don’t know how many toys Aladdin sold, but it doesn’t have the chance to sort of become the big thing.

You know, Frozen, if Frozen had just debuted on Disney+ back in those days would we have all the Anna and Elsa merchandise that we have now? I kind of don’t think we would have.

**Craig:** I disagree.

**John:** Maybe.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think we would. It’s just different. That’s the thing. It’s just different. It’s weird. The movie business has always been this strange marriage between two people who think the other one needs them more. And I think – look, this was the thing we talked about 100 times because everybody would always predict it every year based on nonsense. But then this rather world-changing event occurred and it occurred exactly when every studio was building their own Netflix killer. And so this interesting concordance is in front of us now historically. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know how – I think that certainly if the theatrical business comes back it’s going to look a whole lot different. That much I think everybody pretty much agrees on.

**John:** Yeah. So obviously there’s a couple other big movies that we’re curious what’s going to happen to them next. So, 007 No Time to Die was supposed to come out right as the pandemic launched. Apparently there have been discussions with Apple or other places to sort of takeover that and put it out there in the world. It’s interesting because with Wonder Woman 1984 that’s Warners. There’s HBO Max. It’s a really natural fit there and will help drive HBO Max. There’s a good synergy there. With something like No Time to Die there’s no partner studio that is the right place to send it to streaming. So it’s all complicated.

Dune apparently is pushed back a whole year. It’s tough. But I think more things are going to probably go on streaming just because even in the best case scenario where a vaccines get distributed widely I don’t even think our normal summer season is realistic.

**Craig:** Yeah. It just doesn’t seem possible, because there’s going to be a bit of a trust gap. No one reasonable wants to be the first person back in the place that might kill them. So, there will be a little bit of a – I think you might see Christmas. I could see that being – Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2021 could be a thing.

**John:** Could be.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Let’s get to some follow up. We talked previously about the PayUpHollywood survey that they were surveying people who work in assistant kind of jobs in our industry. That survey is now up and it is now live, so there will be a link in the show notes for that. So a reminder that if you are working in one of those positions it would be great if you could take the survey so we know how you’re working, what you’re being paid, what your conditions are because even in this crazy time there’s going to be progress that needs to get made. And so we can see what has happened and where people are at right now. So please click that link in the show notes if you are a person who works in those assistant kind of jobs in the industry.

One of the places you might be working in that assistant-y kind of job is at an agency. And there was some agency news this past week. I don’t even know where to begin. I guess we should start with a recap of where we were at the last time through this.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So where we were at last time, Craig, help me out. We were down to two final agencies who had not signed the WGA deal.

**Craig:** Yeah. UTA and ICM were the two agencies of the big four agencies that had been holding out and suing and all the rest of it. And also they were two of the four remaining agencies that packaged, I think, yeah, both of them. And UTA and ICM, the only real significant difference between those two and CAA and WME is that UTA and ICM didn’t really have functional or significant production entities that they controlled as well.

**John:** Yeah. UTA’s was small.

**Craig:** Tiny.

**John:** Below the 20% cap.

**Craig:** Exactly. Of ownership that they were allowed to have in it. So UTA and ICM signed the agreement with the Writers Guild and the basic run of it was that they’re going to stop packaging over the course of what is it a year and a half or something or two years?

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** Yup. And so in a year and a half or two years they will be completely out of the packaging business and as a result of saying we’re going to do that. Plus also some things like we’ll share some information with the guild, all that other stuff. And so the guild said, “Great. Welcome back. If you want to be represented by UTA or ICM as a WGA member you may.”

And then, you know, the expectation was that CAA and William Morris Endeavor would kind of do the same quickly thereafter. It seems like they want to.

**John:** Well actually an important step was that CAA said like, oh, we did sign. And so they signed a copy. They basically the ICM agreement and then sent it through but they actually changed stuff on it so it became this weird back and forth. It was clear that they were basically taking all of the existing deal but that the question of how they spin down their production entity was really at issue.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this is the part that is just frustrating for me, looking at this from the outside. Because what it seems like – and this is where I have a question for you – because we’re dealing with – again, there are hundreds and hundreds of WGA members who had agents at CAA and WME who would like to go back and have their agents back. And CAA and WME as far as I can tell are both saying, “We agree to everything. We agree that we won’t package anymore. And we will divest down from these companies so we’re under the 20% cap.”

And what I think the Writers Guild is saying back to them is, “Great. But you have to actually get under the 20% now before we let you do this again.” And they’re grousing about how that’s complicated and so on and so forth. And this is why this rambles on. And I guess my question is–

**John:** I don’t think that’s accurate.

**Craig:** Tell me what is going on.

**John:** So, what happened this past week was that CAA announced that they have put all their production entities into a blind trust and therefore they believe that met the requirements of what needed to happen. And “you have to let us sign this deal.” And then put in a new lawsuit saying WGA is not allowing us to sign this thing and it’s unfair competition. They complained about Range Media and UTA also in that complaint.

The last statement that the WGA put out about this whole thing in terms of getting below the 20% cap is saying we have to understand what your corporate structure is so we can see what’s actually realistic about sort of the process of getting you down to that 20%. So, I don’t there, as I recall, I don’t think a line has been stated that you have to have sold it already in order to sign the deal. I don’t think that has been said.

**Craig:** So I guess my question is if we are allowing UTA and ICM and by extension CAA and WME to have up to a year and a half or two years to extract themselves from the packaging business, at which point one presumes we review and see if they have or haven’t, why can’t we do the same thing about this other stuff?

**John:** I think what you’re seeing communication from the WGA is that we need to know that we can actually audit that thing. And so I think the questions really come down to, and the things that you and I both were hoping that lawyers were figuring out in rooms, is basically how do we do this audit. What does it look like? How do we actually know?

**Craig:** May I ask a question? How is it possible, this is why I get a little grumpy sometimes, how is it possible that this effort that we began two years ago or something hinges on a point that apparently we have yet to figure out how we want to do? That is very confusing to me.

**John:** Oh, aren’t all negotiations down to sort of those final details? Well how are you actually going to assess this?

**Craig:** No. No. I mean, in the sense that if you know that one of the things that we require the agencies to do is convince us through some sort of auditing or observation process that they have indeed divested from a company, how are we only – I mean, wouldn’t we have already been sort of putting together a method of what would be acceptable to us? I just don’t understand how we – once they agreed to it how then on our side we were like, “Well OK but how will we know?” Shouldn’t we have already known that? Because I know that we hired a lawyer to kind of figure it out now.

**John:** So, I want to answer the question but I also want to take a step back because I feel like it also relates to kind of the election situation that we find ourselves in right now. I think what you and I are both frustrated by in some of this is a lack of clarity and transparency in term so what actually is happening here. Because especially with this new lawsuit that happened this last week there was a lot of sort of he said/she said about what actually happened in this negotiation.

When I was living in France I got to be there for the presidential election. I went with my friends and watched them vote. And it was really different and really cool how they do it. So you walk in, you sign in to show that you are a person who lives there, and then there are two stacks of little ballots and each is printed with one candidate’s name. You take one from each stack and an envelope and then you go into a little curtained area and then you put the name of the candidate you want in the envelope and seal the envelope. And then you crumple up the other one and stick it in your pocket or whatever. And then you put this sealed ballot into this clear plastic box and everyone can see the clear plastic box.

When the election is over, when the voting concludes, they unlock the box and everybody watches as the two things are neatly stacked up. You can see who has more ballots. You actually count them. You can visually see what happened. I loved how transparent that was. And my frustration is that this process – I guess I saw some of that ballot counting happening in the live streams that are happening.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** My frustration is that I see some of these Zooms and I kind of wish that everyone could just see these incredibly boring Zooms where they’re talking through this minutia because it would be so edifying to see sort of what is actually being discussed. Because it is this really – this stuff that is important but it’s trivial and it’s also just you want them to get over it. I think you often express how you just wish you could lock people in a room and get them to resolve the thing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I kind of lock people in Zoom and just get this resolved.

**Craig:** I’m with you on that. And I have no doubt that it’s always the case that actually creating binding agreements between large entities is difficult and challenging. What I guess I remain confused by and grumpy about is the fact that something – generally if you go into a negotiation and you’re looking to win something you ought to understand how that victory should look and feel. Meaning you ought to be able to go in – if we go in and negotiate with the AMPTP and we say, “We want a new system whereby we share copyright. We are employees but also then we share copyright and there’s royalties. A very complicated thing we’re asking.” And oh my god, the companies say, “Fine, OK.” At that point we’re really not entitled to say, “Well, OK, but we need time to figure out how.”

Like you have to know how if you’re asking for something. And this is something that is just confusing to me. That once the companies said, “OK, we’ll divest from these production entities,” we should have said, “Great, here’s our 40-page instruction manual on what we demand.” Now, we can negotiate about that 40 pages.

**John:** I do think more of that has happened – and again I think with big public transparency you might have been able to see a little bit more of that, but I think that 40-page document kind of does exist.

**Craig:** Well it exists now. But didn’t you hire a guy – you, I mean the guild – didn’t we hire a guy really recently to help us figure this out?

**John:** I think one of the things that’s complicated is who is CAA and who is WME. Who owns them? And what does the ownership actually look like? Which was the thing we were asking for. And so even in putting CAA’s production entity into a blind trust, well, OK, but what’s to stop the same people who own CAA from just buying that thing out of the blind trust? It’s complicated. And so those are the things that do need to be figured out.

**Craig:** I agree. But those were facts when we began. I guess that’s really what I’m coming down to is this. It is confusing to me that we’re just now getting around to telling them how our victory should look. Because in all seriousness while it’s going to be a victory eventually it’s just making this drag out longer. That’s what my annoyance is. That when David Young or David Goodman or whoever it was went on and said, “Well this is incredibly complicated. We are hiring an attorney now to help us figure out how we can make sure you guys are comporting with what we want,” I’m like, now? We’re hiring them now? OK.

**John:** To be fair, you could say that the guild is dragging this out, but when CAA or WME doesn’t get back to you with the actual things you’re asking for that help you figure out what needs to be in this contract that’s slowing things down too.

**Craig:** Well, yeah, but I’m not a member of CAA’s governing board. I’m a member of the Writers Guild. So my whole thing is like, OK, I can only “control” what my side does because I have a vote on my side. I don’t have a vote at CAA. I can’t. I mean, you know, I can yell at them. I can say what the F, guys. Look, the fact that all of them, UTA and ICM basically just held their breath and then eventually stopped holding their breath and CAA and WME are still holding their breath. Although I will say at least in their defense they want to stop holding their breath and they keep trying to stop and then we keep saying, “Well not quite yet because we’re not sure how you can stop holding your breath.”

And so really I’m a voting member of the Writers Guild. So this is me talking to I guess the leadership as a member saying like, “Hey, the next time we do this we should probably know ahead of time what the actual terms of surrender are when the other generals come into the room and say we surrender.” That is my minor criticism.

**John:** The Deadline headline for this will of course be, “Craig insists on another action against the agencies.”

**Craig:** Oh, it is? [laughs] I mean, that would be kind of fun. You can’t stop Deadline. That much we have learned. Hopefully they, as always, print everything we just said. They’ll leave this part out.

**John:** That’s the goal.

**Craig:** They’re always, oh, speaking of Deadline by the way, huge news. Huge. There is going to be a Uno Game Show.

**John:** I’m so excited about it.

**Craig:** We’ve done it again.

**John:** So we will link to the Deadline article about this. So thank you to everyone who sent this immediately because obviously we talked previously about how we need a new placeholder–

**Craig:** They’re killing us.

**John:** For the generic movie that is based on IP.

**Craig:** They’re chasing us now, right? Like we said Slinky, they were like, fine, we’ll do it. And then we’re like, OK, they took Slinky. Uno. No, we’ll take that too. What’s next?

**John:** Yeah. To be fair, the Uno is actually a game show rather than a movie, so it takes out of movie contention. It makes much more sense as a game show because it is a game.

**Craig:** It’s a game.

**John:** Yeah, it’s a game.

**Craig:** They’re not doing like you enter the domain of a multi-colored world where blah – no, it’s a game show. But at this point now I’m tempted to say the flushed toilet is the new thing. That when they finally come around and say we’re making the Flushed Toilet, we’re actually delving into the cinematic universe of the Flushed Toilet IP.

**John:** How about Mr. Clean? Mr. Clean feels like a character who could be exploited. I mean, he’s bald. He seems kind of like a genie but kind of like a plumber. I don’t know what his deal is.

**Craig:** He’s got an earring, right?

**John:** He’s got an earring, so he’s lived a life of adventure.

**Craig:** Yeah, something is going on. Sure, he loves bleach. We know that. Like Mr. Clean certainly could be a serial killer.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, he clearly has a goal. He has an objective. He wants to clean things. But what is it about his backstory that is leading him to this need to clean?

**Craig:** And is it cleaning or scouring? I mean, he really – it’s like a chemical burning away of sins. And also suspiciously in great shape for an older man.

**John:** 100%. I really agree. Because there’s a Yul Brynner. He’s like a jacked Yul Brynner.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like is he juicing? Is he even a human? What is he and why is he here and why is he dumping freaking poison all over everything?

**John:** I feel like the Scrubbing Bubbles could be a cute – I mean, the merch on the Scrubbing Bubbles is great.

**Craig:** Scrubbing Bubbles are like the things that we think are the heroes because they’re adorable and then you realize that, oh my god, Mr. Clean was the hero all along. He’s the only thing between us and the bubbles.

**John:** Well, I mean, the question is like the Scrubbing Bubbles they seem kind of like minions in the sense that they’re cute but they could do evil.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But there’s also a Gremlins quality. Like, you know, they’re helpful until they are incredibly dangerous.

**Craig:** Until the bubbles start happening. You know? And then those little eyes. Scrubbing Bubbles. Oh my god. What a brilliant thought.

**John:** Yeah. I’m excited. So, I’m going to pitch maybe the Mr. Clean movie is really where we’re at next because that’s even less, you know, it’s a character. I don’t know.

**Craig:** I don’t know owns the company that owns Mr. Clean but I’m just go out on a limb and say Unilever.

**John:** Unilever or SC Johnson Wax or those kind of things.

**Craig:** There you go. So like they should create what I think these corporations now call a content division. And it’s just Mr. Clean. Yeah, well we had a president who wanted us to all inject Mr. Clean. So what do you know? It could work.

**John:** It could work.

**Craig:** It could work.

**John:** Let’s get to our Three Page Challenges. We have three new entries in the Three Page Challenge. So if you are just joining us for the first time and you’ve never gone through a Three Page Challenge what we do is we ask our listeners if they want to send in the first three pages of their script, could be a TV script, could be a feature, to us and we will take a look at them and give some honest feedback on what we’re seeing here.

So Megana’s inbox gets overflowing with these. You don’t send them to ask@johnaugust.com. Instead what you do is you go to johnaugust.com/threepage and there’s an entry form there. And you fill out your information and you send it through. So, Megana and sometimes other folks help cull through these and find interesting ones. Not always like the best things that we read but the things that are most interesting and most applicable to our listenership. So this time we have three new entries here.

Thank you to everyone who wrote in, but especially these three people for letting us talk about their things on the air. Again, everyone is doing this voluntarily. This is for fun. This is not for profit or for–

**Craig:** Well, I’m not profiting, but I’m pretty sure you are.

**John:** Somehow. Somehow we’re all profiting.

**Craig:** Except for me. I just want to, again, be clear. I get nothing.

**John:** Let’s start with RPG, a role-playing game. So, Craig, do you want to read us a description of this if people don’t have it in front of them?

**Craig:** Of course. So we’ve got three pages here entitled RPG written by Michael Seminerio. We cut between scenes of a funeral and a dungeon as a boy’s voice over describes being trapped in darkness, finding a light, and then having the light turn on you to become your enemy. Funeral scenes take place in the Everglades and follow Miccosukee tribe members as they lower a coffin and send a float into the water. We pay particular attention to David, 12 years old, who does not sing along during the ceremony. The dungeon scenes follow a hooded figure who tries to light a torch before the fire from the torch chases him out of the cave.

Finally we arrive at a mobile home where David sits under a makeshift cave of bed sheets with a few other boys we saw during the funeral scene.

John, you and I not only enjoy playing an RPG but we were playing one last night.

**John:** We were.

**Craig:** So this seems super apt.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a little bit sleepy just because of that, because we went late.

**Craig:** You’re sleepy?

**John:** Ha, yeah. I saw you tweeting at like 2:45am.

**Craig:** Because Chris Morgan and I just stayed up yacking for a while. So, yeah, I’m like guhhh.

**John:** All right. So we call it a Three Page Challenge but sometimes people have a dedication page before those three pages and this a script that has a dedication page. Right after the title page is a note to the reader saying that this story takes place in 1989. It’s three paragraphs. It’s way too long.

So, let’s talk about dedication pages or introductory pages like this. They can be really helpful for setting important information about the script. Sometimes there’s a quote there. Sometimes there’s something that just gives a sense of what the movie is going to feel like. Here this felt kind of like an apology in a weird way. It was too long and too defensive. My pitch would be to Michael, “This story takes place in 1989. It was a different time.” Just get out of there. Because too much of what’s happening here is trying to explain away things.

**Craig:** Or, just tell him to delete all of it. Because I agree, it seems like an apology. What it seems like – so the basic thrust of this note to the reader is, hey, in 1989 kids ran around more independently than they do now. And, in fact, they do so even if there had been riots nearby or stuff like that. And my answer is was somebody complaining about this? Did someone say, dude, you’ve got to say something because people will not understand. I’m like, no, people will absolutely understand. First of all, most of the readers that you’re going to be giving this to are not, you know, whatever, 18. And they’ve all seen movies before. And they’ve seen older movies before. My guess is they’ve seen ET. They’re familiar with – and I don’t think at any point – there’s an entire series on Netflix called Stranger Things. It’s like, come on.

**John:** I was going back to Stranger Things. Like, we kind of know what that vibe is.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I don’t know if you remember, John, do you remember the long speech in the beginning in the first episode of Stranger Things? Where they sort of like, hold on. No, they don’t do that.

**John:** It was a bold choice to have the showrunners come forward, under a top light, to sort of explain what we were about to see.

**Craig:** I’ll tell you, look, and honestly Michael the bigger issue with this is not that it’s extraneous, because it is extraneous. The bigger issue is that it’s not well written. I’m just going to come right at you with this, Michael. First of all there’s a typo in it. And you’re going to hear me say there’s a typo in it three different times during the Three Page Challenge section today. But, also, it’s just clunky. It’s clunky. It’s not particularly well punctuated. It’s over-written. And it just sets the wrong mood.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The way you write in screenplay format is better than the way you write in prose. I’m just being honest.

**John:** It’s true.

**Craig:** This is not doing you any favors. I would delete.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s get to the actual pages. So pretend that page didn’t exist. We’re to the actual pages. And we’re cutting back and forth between two different ideas. One is that this sort of adventure game, or following this person in this dark space, and we hear this boy’s voice over talking about what we’re seeing, and this funeral. So let’s talk about the adventure stuff first because that’s honestly why I picked these out of the final contenders because like, oh, it’s an adventure game stuff.

The boy’s description as he’s reading aloud, it felt like Zork language to me. And Zork being the text-based computer adventure game. The writing felt like that and I really responded to it in that it felt like that. Ultimately when it’s revealed that it’s more of a D&D kind of situation where there’s boys together playing a game. I didn’t buy the dialogue anymore. I didn’t buy that description as well because having played a bunch of D&D you don’t talk like that. There’s not these moments of sort of like prose descriptions of stuff.

So I’m torn because I both like the boy’s voice and I didn’t believe it when it was ultimately revealed what the context for that voice over was supposed to be. Craig, how did you feel about it?

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s an interesting idea. I do like the contrast of a juvenile fantasy narration with something that’s very adult and very not fantasy which is a burial. What’s a little concerning for me is that there is a sound issue. Because when you are using one thing to essentially overlap on top of another, so D&D narration overlapping on top of a funeral, you have to let one audio reality dominate. And in this case because the boy is delivering voice over it is his reality.

So, that means his voice over is the sound that we’re hearing. If we want to hear some distant-y footstep-y echoes from the dungeon hero, that’s fine. If we want to hear some very light background sounds from when we’re in the actual Everglades that’s fine. But what you have here is a kid doing that voice over and you have music. You have a song. A pop song. And I can’t quite tell from the way you’ve written it, because you haven’t made it clear, if this is soundtrack, or if it’s actually from the actual funeral itself, like maybe a radio or something, so diegetic or non-diegetic as we say.

It’s impossible to say. Either way it’s not tenable. And on top of that there is, I think, additional singing. I think the funeral, when they’re doing the funeral stuff – oh no, that’s the song. That is. So you’ve got two things that are kind of, ah, no, there is also this song for the dead, song by the Miccosukee members in attendance in the Miccosukee language.

So you have a boy, you have Native Americans singing a song. And then you have a pop song, all clashing in my head. I have no idea what reality I’m in, at all.

**John:** Yeah. And so contrast between different things is great. And so cutting back and forth between different things is terrific. So we’re not arguing against that kind of contrast. It’s just that there’s no coherence between it. Like those things being bounced off each other it’s not doing anything interesting, or it’s not telling us what interesting thing you’re trying to do. So to hear that pop song when we’re back in the dungeon-y space, that could be cool. The sense that we’re all together. But you’ve got to tell us if we’re doing that, because otherwise we’re just making guesses or we don’t feel confident about what we’re doing.

So talk about the real world stuff here. I felt like I really needed to be reminded that this is 1989 in that first slug line, or very early on, because if I don’t know what time period I’m in I’m just sort of guessing. And so I see the word Miccosukee and I’m guessing that’s a Native American tribe but I didn’t really know, so I’m just sort of stumbling for a bit there. And I don’t know, when I see that word, I don’t know if like, wait, that paragraph there, that whole section, I didn’t know if I was in the 1800s or present day or when. So, you’ve got to give me a clearer time period there.

And even better than a time period, if you can find something specific that tells us as an audience so you don’t have to print the year there like he’s got a certain kind of Walkman. He’s got something that tells me when we are, because it’s so crucial. The specificity was missing there.

**Craig:** And I can’t think of a better argument to get rid of that opening note to the reader than what you just said. Because there’s paragraphs about how this thing takes place in 1989 and like you it’s immediately forgotten. Just gone.

You’re right that the narration from the kid is not a very RPG accurate narration. But let’s say we forgive a little bit of that and what we’re thinking about is the sort of artistic juxtaposition of this – somebody taking flight from something terrible and evil out of the darkness. And the loss of somebody that you love. There is a kind of a natural pairing there.

But where it lands is deeply confusing to me. So maybe you got it. I don’t. The boy, who has been narrating this, suddenly yells, “Mom.” And then instead of cutting to reality where the kid is with his friends and his mom has just walked in or something, she’s not there. There is no mom.

**John:** I got confused, too. I don’t know what’s happening.

**Craig:** Why is he yelling mom?

**John:** Also confused.

**Craig:** And then, Gary, his friend, is complaining in a very D&D nerdy way that the specific dimensions of the chasm aren’t relevant. But no one suggested that they were. It’s just suddenly he’s arguing with somebody that hasn’t argued something. I’m so confused.

**John:** Something got lost there. Something got cut out. It just didn’t quite track.

So, one of the things, a general lesson I think people can take from looking at especially page two of this script is how we introduce characters who they’re going to be in a group scene but they’re not important yet. And this is a thing I saw both on page one and page two of this. “One Miccosukee boy, DAVID OSCEOLA (12), does not sing. GEORGE OSCEOLA (70s), with long silver-white hair, stands behind David with one hand on his shoulder.” So you’re calling out that George Osceola is a man in his 70s, probably his grandfather, and I think that’s a situation where I think it’s fine to say like his grandfather this because we’re going to learn this information soon enough. To not say it makes me wonder like what is the relationship between these people. Just give us a grandfather there.

The bigger issue for me is when we get on page two and we just get shot-gunned with a bunch of different character names. And it’s really hard to keep them straight. So we meet Gary, Octavio, his father, Sheila his mother, a woman, Robert, Guy, Wesley. There’s a bunch of people and I don’t know who is important and what’s important and it’s distracting me from what you’re trying to do on the page which is see David’s reaction to what’s happening at this funeral.

So if you’re just giving us a group of people and we’re going to separate them out later just give us the group and don’t call out their names. And you can tell us when we do introduce them separately like we saw them briefly at the funeral. But throwing too many names at us early on, especially page two, just scares us and keeps us on focusing on what’s really important.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** One other moment here I want to call out is “The Woman carries a well-worn ‘Traveling Wilburys, Miami 1989 Tour’ t-shirt. The Woman ceremoniously sets it on the float.” We’re not going to see that. We’re not going to see that it’s a Traveling Wilburys shirt unless she were to hold it up and show it to the crowd and then gets reaction, and then it actually has meaning. So if there is something like that that’s important you’ve got to show it to the people in the scene so it’s clear why she’s doing it, or this is a question of why she’s doing it.

So just having a thing and putting something somewhere isn’t meaningful unless we know what it means to the characters.

**Craig:** There are so many characters in this scene.

**John:** It’s a lot.

**Craig:** Which is fine. Sometimes you can say we’ll meet some of these people later.

**John:** Exactly. I’ve done that.

**Craig:** Just burying people with names just makes everybody a mush. I can see things. I mean, I will say it’s very visual and so I can see things and all that. It’s just there isn’t enough clarity here and there’s just mistakes. Mistakes.

**John:** So a simple writing thing which applies to screenwriting but other stuff as well is try never to repeat a word in a sentence. And so on page one here we have “WE SEE hands fumbling with flint in the brief flashes from the spark of each strike of the flint against an iron shackle.” There’s ways to rewrite that sentence where you don’t have to say flint twice. And that’s what you should do.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Cool. All right. Let’s move to onto Rodeo by Dwight Myfelt.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** So here’s a quick description. Again, you can look in the show notes for the actual PDFs if you want to follow along. But if you’re driving in the car here is the description of what we see. It’s 6:36am in a quiet Chicago suburb when a manhole cover moves and a clown emerges onto the street. A small boy watches from his living room window as the clown pulls out sacks of bills and two other clowns from the manhole. The clown sees the boy and gestures “sshhh” with a finger to his lips.

The second clown sees the boy and gestures a gunshot. The third clown doesn’t see the boy. The three clowns load the sacks into a nearby van. The first clown asks where Jason is and the third clown says that Jason is not coming. The van drives away.

We cut to the sewer beneath the manhole where we see a fourth clown, presumably Jason, lying face down and covered in blood. A couple hours later we’re back on the street while a car is being towed out of the open manhole cover where it apparently got stuck. A cop asks a sanitation worker to investigate the sewer tunnel based on the boy’s claim that he saw clowns coming out of it. The sanitation worker says he doesn’t see anything as we reach the bottom of page three.

Craig, what was your reaction to Rodeo?

**Craig:** Well, always a tricky thing to write an opening scene of a movie involving clowns and a heist where one of the clowns seems to die and the clowns appear to be lying to each other because I’ve seen that before in the one of the most famous openings of a movie ever which is Batman Dark Knight. So right off the bat I’m like it feels a little derivative there. It’s definitely of that vibe. But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible to do. There were aspects of this that I enjoyed.

Here’s on aspect I did not enjoy – the first page. Because it is a solid brick with paragraph – returns, I appreciate – of text, action description, and I read the first three paragraphs about a hundred times. There was something about the first three paragraphs that were just quicksand.

I’m going to read the first paragraph because this is what Scott Frank has often called Purple Dialogue. That’s not his coinage, but he does like saying that. And I think this is an example. “EXT. CHICAGO SUBURBS – EARLY MORNING Ground level, looking down the center of a quiet, tree-lined residential street. Oak trees arch over the street like the ceiling of a cathedral. Sunlight streams down through their leaves much as it would have in the Garden of Eden.”

**John:** I see two sentences there you can cut. So, after the word street the rest of the paragraph goes away because just get to the next thing we’re seeing. Because honestly we get it. And all that other description, great in a novel, we don’t need it in a screenplay. And it’s just the difference between the two forms.

**Craig:** I’m OK, if you want me to know that oak trees are arching over the street and it looks like the ceiling of a cathedral with sunlight streaming down like the Garden of Eden, whatever that might have been, I’m OK with that as long it matters. If you then cut to somebody lying on the street looking up, experiencing god because he’s high or has been hit in the head or dying, great. Otherwise, eh. So, that’s my new favorite thing by the way. I’m just doing my One Cool Thing right now because I don’t care, it’s so funny.

Have you seen this thing where Melania Trump talks about how people have attacked her husband for being anti-gay?

**John:** I have not seen this. No.

**Craig:** It’s the greatest. So somebody has mashed it up with this meme of this woman Trisha Paytas, I don’t know if you’re familiar with her. Your daughter probably is. Sort of YouTube-y lady. And so Melania pronounces anti-gay as “auntie gay.” So she goes, “Some people have accused my husband of auntie gay.” And they do a little subtle where it’s like auntie.

**John:** I love it.

**Craig:** And then we cut to this woman and she’s holding a sandwich, or a hamburger or something, and she’s talking to somebody off screen that we don’t see and she goes, “What?” And then it goes back to Melania and Melania goes, “My husband was the first president to enter the White House in support of gay marriage.” And then they cut back to this woman and she goes, “Huh?” And then they cut to a series of Donald Trump quotes saying in almost exactly the same way, like 15 different times, “No, I’m not in favor of gay marriage.” And then it cuts back to her and she goes, “Oh, eh. OK.”

And I have been going, “What? Huh? Oh, OK.” So that’s kind of my reaction to this first paragraph. What?

But what I do appreciate, this is what I appreciated – also there’s what I call forced action here. So these clowns have apparently ripped something off, I assume. Or we’re meant to believe that what they have in their big canvas sacks is money or something they’ve stolen. But here’s the forced action. Clown number one pushes the manhole cover open, climbs out. Walks down the street. 20 yards down the street. That’s a good 60 feet. Passes a brick house. There’s a little kid looking out through a window. I don’t quite know the kid’s age but I’d have to guess because he’s in pajamas and he’s drinking a sippy cup. And the clown waves at him.

And you’re like, oh, that’s interesting. This kid is seeing these creepy clowns but it’s kind of cool. Then clown number two arrives out of the manhole. Where the hell was clown number two? How far back was this clown?

**John:** Yeah. Doesn’t make sense.

**Craig:** Well, same thing as the next clown. These clowns apparently like to keep a good 60–

**John:** Social distance.

**Craig:** They social distanced their way through the sewer system, which is amusing to me. Also moving manholes is actually really hard to do. Regardless, that part felt super not true. It just felt forced.

But I did enjoy the idea at least of these clowns moving down the street and the first two interacting with this kid in differing ways but cool ways. And then the third one not giving a damn about the kid. So that’s an interesting way to learn about a character. So that I really appreciated. That instead of Dwight using a lot of dialogue to make us understand that clown number three is the boss or is the grumpy one or whatever, he used that. And I thought that was very clever.

**John:** So I want to speak up for Dwight here and say that I did actually read the whole first page and I didn’t skim. And I think the reason I did that is even though there were a couple phrases there that I didn’t actually need I was curious about it. And sentence by sentence it was bringing me down a very full page. So well done Dwight for not having me give up and pull the rip cord and skip to the next page.

Here’s a thing I want to point out though is it says clown number one, and then clown number two, and clown number three. The minute we see clown number one, well we know there’s a clown number two. So don’t say clown number one. Just say a clown. And then say a second clown. And then a third clown. And if you need to refer to them as clown number three later on, great, but don’t start with clown number one because it’s giving up the game.

**Craig:** Yeah. I completely agree.

**John:** Cool. I can also see all of this. And I felt like I could imagine what the shots looked like. It felt kind of like it was in a cool semi slow motion, which I appreciated. I like that the car has backed into it. I didn’t mind not seeing the car back into it. I liked coming to the car already stuck in it. Felt great.

I didn’t get what the point was of having the – and maybe there was a reason on page four why we needed to have the sanitation worker, but considering he doesn’t have a name I don’t get the point of the sanitation worker being there at that moment. Why you can’t just look down in there and show us that there’s not a body there now since we as the audience knew there should have been a body.

**Craig:** Yeah. I guess that’s the idea is that you want somebody to go all the way down to the bottom where you’re like, oh god, he’s going to find the body and then there isn’t a body. And he’s like meh. So, I guess I kind of understood that. My issue was more like I don’t need the sanitation worker – here’s what doesn’t make sense. Someone calls the police and says there’s a car. And a cop comes and then the city sends a sanitation guy. And then they stand there. They just stand there. And then one of them says, “So why am I here?” What were the two of you talking about before you asked that question?

I mean, you can get out of a truck and be like what’s going on, but you can’t just start with two people standing dead in the middle of a scene and then one goes, “Why am I here?” You literally cannot do that. That is the – my new thing is that anytime a character says, “Hey,” that’s a sign that something has gone terribly wrong. If you start a scene with somebody going, “Hey.”

OK. And then the cop goes, “Oh, we’ve been activated.” I’m a real person now? Let me explain to you that clowns came out of the hole. But until this point – it’s like they were waiting for the stage manager to go, “You’re on.” I don’t actually think you need any of this. I think what you need is a cop and then have the truck pull up. Have the guy get out and the sanitation worker is like what’s going on. What’s going on essentially? Why am I here? There’s a kid that says clowns came out of the hole. And the sanitation just starts laughing, because it’s funny. He’s like, oh ok, but seriously. And the cop is like someone took the cover off man. I’m not allowed to screw with this. You got to do it. And he’s like, OK, let me go climb down there. And now it’s a suspense thing because we think he’s going to find a body and then he doesn’t.

But it just doesn’t seem realistic at all in any way at all.

**John:** Another moment which is not realistic to me was at the bottom of page two. “CLOWN #4 (Jason) lies face down, eyes open, as blood streams from his temple.” Being face down with eyes open is challenging. Not impossible. But the visual is weird. Basically you can have your head turned to the side but if you’re really faced down then we’re not going to see your eyes being open.

**Craig:** You know, these are the things that people think don’t matter and they matter.

**John:** And also it’s a shot to his temple. How can he be face up? I don’t know.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t know. Hey, do you want to do our third and final one?

**Craig:** Yeah, let’s finish this off, shall we? Oh, there was a typo by the way in Rodeo. My fault. So we get to our third one. The third one is The Interview written by Leilah Ruan. Leilah has also committed a typo. So all three writers today.

Can I just say, like if you’re sending it in, shouldn’t you proofread it really carefully? I’m just saying like doesn’t that seem kind of a basic sort of thing?

So, that said, here’s the summary of Leilah’s work here. Alex sits upright at a conference table as she anxiously bounces her knee. Next to her is Lexie who twists around bored in her chair. Lexie teases Alex about her nail polish. Alex tries to ignore Lexi.

Steve, 39, walks into the conference room wearing an expensive suit. A job interview begins. He’s interviewing Alex. Steve doesn’t acknowledge Lexi, who makes jokes, tries to get Alex’s attention. Steve asks Alex about her field work experience. Alex says she doesn’t talk about it because it’s embarrassing. We flash back to an 11-year-old Alex as she knocks on doors and asks people if they’re interested in learning about Jesus.

Back in the present Alex answers that she did this work for a few years. And, of course, if it wasn’t clear even from the specific description here, Lexie exists in Alex’s mind.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s where I probably want to start. Because it’s so clear right from the very beginning that this must be this kind of situation. And usually I think you would try to hold off on this, but in this case we’re going for it right from the very start. It’s clear that this is the situation. That this is a figment of her imagination or some sort of split personality case. Great.

OK, I think the contrast between the two characters was clear. I could sense Alex’s frustration and discomfort with having Lexie there, but also knew that this wasn’t a new thing. This felt like a thing that had been going on for quite a long time.

I’m torn because while I largely enjoyed that dynamic I didn’t really believe the interview situation of it. I didn’t believe the reality of the interview especially well. And I didn’t feel like I had great information going into what this interview even was, which was hindering my ability to enjoy it to some degree.

I want to call out though some small things that Leilah does on the page which are great. Our second sentence, “ALEX sits upright at a conference table. Prim. Poised. Perfectly made up. Still as a statue, aside from one bouncing anxious knee.” The alliteration of prim, poised, perfectly made up, it’s a small thing but it also just gives me as a reader a little bit of confidence. Oh, this person is trying. There’s a thought behind this and we’re using the fragments. We’re using the staccato rhythms to sort of get a sense of what’s going on here. So I really appreciate that.

An interesting style of not putting periods at the end of sentences where I expect there to be a period. So on page one you see this after amused, we see this after sit, as if it’s just spilling into the next line of dialogue. I guess you do it enough times it becomes a style rather than a mistake and so I’m going to call this a style.

**Craig:** I’m going to call it a mistake. Because there are too many places where she is putting the period down. And it just seems like there was a kind of a general sloppiness that was going on with a bunch of these because there’s no reason why some of them have periods and some of them don’t.

**John:** So if you’re going to do it just do it that way all the time.

**Craig:** Spellcheck please. Embarrassing is the worst possible word to misspell because it is its own definition. Yeah.

**John:** On page two Steve says, “Good to meet you. Sit please. Did you want a coffee, a water?” And Lexie says some basic grammar. OK to have a comeback but there wasn’t a grammar mistake there. That felt weird. And so I like the idea of a character who is constantly sort of undermining the scene, great, but that wasn’t the right – it’s just like the wrong joke for it. It just doesn’t actually track.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, this is something we’ve seen before. So this is not – almost a genre unto itself. The “someone is in my mind.” And the movie I always kind of fling myself back to is All of Me because it was just so much fun to watch Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin occupying the same human being. This is clearly different. This is more of a manifestation of your own stronger self, which we’ve also seen too. This kind of like I’m sort of meek and controlled and trying to be a good person and then inside of me is this angry, ballsy, tough person that wants to break out. And basically turning somebody into the devil and angel on their own shoulder. And that’s perfectly cool. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t disqualify this at all.

But, I will say that my biggest issue here you’ve touched on twice. The first is the interview is not real. The interview, both Steve and the things he says, seem really crafted to clear out of the way of Lexie and Alex, which actually hurts what Lexie and Alex do. And there’s too much Lexie. Because when Lexie is talking sometimes it’s OK and sometimes it just doesn’t work.

For instance, it’s fine to say in an empty room looking around one of these stylish boardrooms “I think I feel the ghosts of sexual harassment lawsuits in here.” Sexual harassments is not quite as good, so you want to get that S off of there. But that’s fine because you’re guessing. Well, “You’re right, tax fraud too.” Great.

But when this guy shows up he doesn’t do anything wrong. And she keeps going after him and that part is a little questionable. Like you say she questions his grammar when I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with the grammar there. And she implies that he is covertly racist which doesn’t really come out. I mean, it’s not saying that he might not be racist, but it just doesn’t appear there. But here’s what specifically Leilah what I want you to look at, just technically, is Lexie starts talking. Steve asks a question. Did you want a coffee or a water? Lexie starts talking. And then it says, “Steve speaks inaudibly while Lexie tries to get Alex’s attention.”

So, that’s problematic. You can call out that Steve’s voice sort of disappears because Alex is kind of like tunnel visioning. And then you can have Lexie sort of leaning in saying he looks just like ash. But Lexie doesn’t have try and get Alex’s attention. She has it because Steve is gone. His voice is literally gone. But when Steve’s voice comes back this is what he says, “Alex?” Alex looks up, a deer in headlights. So if she’s looking down that’s a little strange, too. But Steve says, “I asked why are you interested in a career in sales?”

**John:** Don’t buy it.

**Craig:** No. This is how this actually goes in real life. John, you’re going to be Alex and I’m going to be Steve. Covertly racist Steve. So, John, why are you interested in a career in sales?

**John:** I’m sorry, what?

**Craig:** John?

**John:** What?

**Craig:** I asked you why are you interested in a career in sales. Now at that moment I’m insane. Because that’s not how that works. No one presumes that you literally just astral projected or lost the ability to hear. That’s not how it works. So that’s clunky writing. I don’t know how else to put it.

**John:** So here are some options that you could consider for this moment. This is a time where you could break out some dual dialogue and you stick Lexie in the right hand column and keep Steve in the left hand column and both things are happening at the same time. And we as the audience will understand that we can kind of ignore Steve and that we really are more focused on Lexie. And that Alex is trying to balance the two things. That can work. It can be annoying if you’re doing that all the time, but for certain cases that would be terrific.

And what Craig was saying in terms of calling out that you’re focusing in on Lexie and ignoring what Steve is saying that also works. I have a scene for something I’m working on right now, there’s some yada-yada that’s happening in the background and I just call that out as yada-yada. That’s fine and fair to do when you’re focusing on a foreground conversation and ignoring the background conversation. That works. But you can’t just say “speaks inaudibly” because how do you tell an actor, “OK, I want you to speak inaudibly here.”

**Craig:** Correct. Essentially we have to imply that there is something happening in Alex’s mind because her attention is being completely drawn by Lexie.

The other thing we have to do is make sure that if Lexie is going to be this sort of forceful, wry, commentariat that what she says has to be correct. So she makes a mistake about the grammar. So we’ve lost a little bit of confidence in Lexie. And then she does it again. Steve repeats, “I asked why are you interested in a career in sales,” and Lexie, the alter ego, says, “Because no other jobs will pay a 25-year-old with no degree, no special skills, and no experience in anything but minimum wage.” That is not true.

There are a lot of jobs that you can do if you’re 25 with no degree, no special skills, and no experience and in anything other than minimum wage. In fact the most cliché obvious answer is fast food. You just work making hamburgers. That’s sort of the classic cliché one. You don’t have to do the classic cliché one but what you can’t say is that sales is the only option. Because actually I think probably a lot of sales jobs they can be a little choosier. So it just doesn’t work.

I mean, if you want to be snappy and kind of snide you have to be accurately snappy and snide.

**John:** Well, and Craig, really this is all circling to a thing we sort of skipped over. We have no idea what this business is or what this company is.

**Craig:** Sales. [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. General sales. All we’ve been told about this is “Interior, an overly stylish boardroom.” Overly stylish? What does that mean? “Alex sits upright at a conference table.” That’s all we get. And so we have no – she’s just in a generic blank space. And because we just don’t know what this is, we don’t know if there’s phones ringing, are people moving in the background? Are there glass walls? What is this place? And without that specificity it feels fake.

**Craig:** Right. It feels fake. There was a thing I remember when – I don’t know if you loved reading the comics in the paper the way I did when I was a kid.

**John:** Oh yeah, when I was a kid. For sure.

**Craig:** So you remember some of the old comics that were already corny and fusty–

**John:** Hi and Lois.

**Craig:** Hi and Lois. Or like Dagwood. There was always some sort of hectored man or woman working for a boss. And the boss was always demanding that they get the contracts done. And I never knew what the hell – what is this business? Did you get the contract? What? For what? They never said. It didn’t matter. So this was like this place. What they do here is sales of something.

Steve, who by the way, all he’s done is, to review, walked into a room, sat down, greeted her politely, offered her something to drink, overlooked the fact that she seems to be astral projecting. Patiently repeats his question. And then when she says, “I worked door to door for a while,” he gets excited. He’s actually quite lovely.

**John:** He seems to want to hire her, yeah.

**Craig:** He’s the most bland, pleasant–

**John:** No, no, no. He’s “disgustingly attractive” it says on page one.

**Craig:** Oh, he’s disgustingly attractive. And he works at Contract Co. But at last, at long last, we get something here at the end that shows the promise. Which is that Alex has a fascinating little backstory that as an 11-year-old she was going door-to-door seeing if people would be interested in learning about our lord and savior Jesus Christ. And finding people slamming their door in her face. And using that as a little cinematic technique to show her as an 11-year-old, as a 15-year-old, as a 21-year-old. She has spent essentially her whole life going door-to-door trying to get people to believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. And every single person slams the door in her face.

So we understand something interesting about her now.

**John:** Yeah. And obviously you’re tipping us off to that’s related to this split personality thing.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** And so even though I’m a little bit frustrated after these three pages I’m still curious to see how this is going to develop, which is good. So well done. You’ve baited the hook enough that I’m curious to read the next couple of pages to see what’s going to happen here.

**Craig:** I agree. I think that there’s a fun concept here and there’s an interesting backstory that makes this more intriguing to me than the usual thing. Because I think the usual version of this is I’m just tired of the world kicking me around. I’m going to get tough. But this is somebody who has actually gone through a different kind of specific getting kicked around. So, cool. And maybe, who knows, maybe Lexie is literally the devil. I don’t know. We’ll see where it goes eventually.

But I would say that Leilah you have to be more careful as you write through these things, not just about things like all three writers again were having some spelling and punctuation typo issues, but you also have to be careful about what people would do. This is what we talked about last week with Scott. What do humans actually do? And in this instance, in this scene, it’s just not comporting with what we know about humans.

**John:** I agree. One last thing, page two, last line of scene description, “Alex trammels down rage.” I got hung up on that thinking like have I been using that word wrong? I don’t think I’ve ever really used the word trammel but does it not mean what I think? So I stopped and I Googled it and looked up. So, that’s not a thing. You can trammel, but trammel down is not actually a thing. And so let’s talk for a moment about just using a word like trammel which is not common in scene description. It’s the kind of thing in a weird way you can get away with it more easily in a book. But in a script where you’re just reading fast and you don’t want people to ever stop or slow down on something I think trammel is just not a good word for you.

**Craig:** There’s another thing about that. Trample I guess or stepped on, or whatever. But here’s what – just like quietly I sort of giggled. Not anything that Leilah or you would ever think of. But there was a baseball player named Alan Trammell. When I was a kid he played for the Tigers. And so when I saw “Alex trammels down rage” I was like, ooh, Alan Trammell. That’s the stupidest thing. That has nothing to do with you, Leilah. I apologize. That’s just completely irrelevant. But Alan Trammell.

**John:** Alan Trammel. I want to thank our brave writers for sending in their pages. So the three who we talked through today, but all the other ones who sent stuff through. So again if you want to read these PDFs they’re attached to the show notes here. Just go to johnaugust.com and find them. If you want to submit your own pages go to johnaugust.com/threepage and you’ll see the little form for doing that. So, again, thank you to everyone who sends these in because I think it’s really helpful for us to be able to talk about the literal words on the page.

**Craig:** What? Huh? Oh. OK.

**John:** I didn’t want to do it as part of the last segment because it was just going too far off field, but how should I feel about Dilbert? I say this because Dilbert is the only comic – I don’t really read the comics anymore, but I think Dilbert is still consistently kind of funny to me, and yet Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is clearly such a weird right wing crank. I can’t – I don’t know how to feel about Dilbert.

**Craig:** Well, Dilbert always was the kind of – he represented the quiet frustration of the white man in the tie, didn’t he? I mean, it’s not actually that farfetched. Sort of the silent fuming – it would have always been a shock if Dilbert had turned to Dogbert and said, “It is odd how we’re all white in this company.” Or whatever. I don’t know if they are all white in the Dilbert company. I don’t know. If you like Dilbert keep reading Dilbert. I mean, look, my whole thing has always been like Ezra Pound for instance.

Ezra Pound, notorious, just notorious racist anti-Semite. Fascist. He collaborated with the fascists, like legitimately. He went to prison. He was arrested in 1945 by our soldiers in Italy because he was essentially collaborating with Mussolini. But his poems are really good. So, I can enjoy his poems and I also think that he the person Ezra Pound was just a dick. I can separate those things. I’m not going to – if I can avoid giving them money I will.

**John:** That’s fair.

**Craig:** I’m not going to buy Dilbert books. I mean, honestly, I don’t actually enjoy Dilbert as much as I do Ezra Pound.

**John:** All right. Thank you for your permission to occasionally chuckle at Dilbert. I just don’t know.

**Craig:** Yeah, I mean, you’re free.

**John:** I’m free. Time for One Cool Things. So obviously one of my One Cool Things has to be Rachel Bloom’s new book.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** I Want to be Where the Normal People Are. So it came out this past week. I have my copy. I have not cracked it open yet but I’m so excited to read about the Rachel Bloom origin story. Because we got to know her when she came to a live Scriptnotes before Crazy Ex-Girlfriend debuted.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And she’s just been delightful every moment since then.

**Craig:** I think when we met her Crazy Ex was not happening.

**John:** It was a Showtime pilot that looked like it was not going to happen. So I don’t want to say that we’re entirely responsible for what’s happened to her career.

**Craig:** I’m OK with that. I’ll say it. I’ll say it.

**John:** But something that we have no involvement in whatsoever but I find just terrific is Harley Quinn, the animated show that is on HBO Max. It is so funny and so dirty and just really smartly done. And really great character work. Great voice work. It was a delight. And so people kept telling me, oh, you should watch it. And I’m like I’m not going to watch that. I don’t really care about that stuff. And I just think it is terrific.

And so what they do with the relationship between Harley and Poison Ivy is really smart. So just kudos to that. And if you’re looking for something to stream over these holidays and the new quarantines I recommend checking out Harley Quinn on HBO Max.

**Craig:** What? Huh? Oh, huh. You’ll use it constantly.

**John:** I will. I know.

**Craig:** It’s wonderful.

**John:** Mike will divorce me.

**Craig:** No, no, no. It will bring you closer together. It really will. Because if he says something like, “John, can you stop doing that” you turn to him and go, “What? Huh?”

**John:** You don’t know Mike at all really. That’s what it comes down.

**Craig:** OK. It’s the laugh in between Oh and OK that makes it so – by the way, this is an old meme. It’s not new. It’s just the Melania – I’ve got to send you the Auntie Gay thing. It’s the greatest thing in history.

**John:** And we will put it in the show notes, of course.

**Craig:** We sure will.

**John:** Great. Is that your One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** Hell yeah.

**John:** All right. Great. So that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Indeed it is.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Mike Caruso. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. They make a great gift. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and the signup for our weekly-ish 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. And if you’re looking for a gift for someone who likes Scriptnotes you can actually give a gift membership to Scriptnotes, so that’s a thing you can consider for a person who is obsessive about our show.

So stick with us after this break because we are going to talk about autobiographies. Craig, thanks for a fun show.

**Craig:** What? [laughs]

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So, Craig, autobiographies. I’ve been thinking about them and sort of what place they hold both on my bookshelves and in sort of my mental space. There were some crucial ones along the way. Like autobiography of Malcolm X which was also written with Alex Haley. But Frederick Douglass’s book. They give you a very clear sense of what it was like to be a person in that place and in that time in ways that other histories sort of can’t. So I appreciate that.

But also I think to like Tina Fey’s Bossy Pants. Or Mindy Kaling’s books. They give you an insight into what it’s like to have the kind of job I wanted to have. And so they’ve been a very important source for me. How about for you, autobiographies?

**Craig:** I generally will go towards biography because for most figures of import or interest it’s the external perspective that I find fascinating. I don’t want to hear somebody explain to me why their life was fascinating. But there are situations where you really want the autobiography because the person’s life is not just fascinating, but it is emotionally fascinating. And that’s something that you can’t really get from the biography the way you can from the individual.

Maybe the most famous autobiography ever is Anne Frank’s diary. It’s not really an autobiography. It was just a diary, so it’s different, but it’s a fascinating insight into somebody in a position that is so specific and so connected to the experience of it that I have absolutely no interest in reading a biography of Anne Frank. Zero.

Similarly I’m sure there are some good biographies of Richard Wright. Why would I want that when what I really want to read is Black Boy because that gets under the hood? It’s like this is the stuff that matters emotionally. So, that’s the sort of thing that I look for. It’s like why must I read this as an autobiography as opposed to not an autobiography, just a regular one.

And so like you, I mean, there are the famous ones we read like the autobiography of Malcolm X. And I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, because also like if you have somebody like Maya Angelou who is just a remarkable writer. And Richard Wright, it’s the same with him as well. You just want that.

Whereas – and no offense to Barack Obama – he’s a perfectly fine writer. I don’t know if he wrote Dreams from My Father with anybody, like a lot of times they’ll pair you up with somebody because you’re busy and running for president and crap or whatever. But I actually want biographies. I would rather read a biography of Barack Obama. It’s just more interesting to me that way.

**John:** To me the distinction is sort of like you have Annie Leibovitz who is an amazing photographer. And so she can find something in somebody’s face that is remarkable. And then you also have people who use Instagram which is basically taking photos of yourself. And they’re really different things. They’re both photography, but they are so different in the sense of an outside eye looking at you versus Instagram which is a self-curated look at sort of who you are and what it is. And they’re both valuable. They’re just really different things.

You talk about the autobiography of Malcolm X which has an outside writer. Or I think of I, Tina, which was the Kurt Loder book on Tina Turner. It’s an autobiography that another person has stepped in to help write. And probably was really helpful in terms of shaping purpose to this. You have insight because you have direct access to the inner workings of Tina Turner’s brain and what it felt like to be in those places. And you have somebody who has skill in putting that on the page. And I think the reason I respond so well to writer’s autobiographies is because they just have that skill of being able to say this is what I felt like and let me create that same experience in your brain.

**Craig:** 100%. Like I really don’t think I’ll ever read a biography of Ernest Hemingway. But I’ve read A Moveable Feast because he’s a great writer. Why wouldn’t I want to? You know?

And so that’s what I’m kind of looking for. And I’ll put Rachel Bloom right up there with Ernest Hemingway. I don’t care. Why not?

**John:** We absolutely should. Cool. So, Craig, talk to me about your autobiography, because I know you’ve been working on it for years. So, what has been the most rewarding thing for you to get into your autobiography?

**Craig:** My autobiography is mostly just a daily description of what worries me. And I have some fairy involved charts that lay out the frequency and quantity and quality of my bowel movements. That’s what it is.

The thought of writing an autobiography to me as me is so absurd. Like what? I don’t think I would get past the first line.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I definitely have a list of grievances and people who were mean to me over the course of my life.

**Craig:** Oh my god, that’s so bitter.

**John:** I’m going to go through that. I don’t think I’m going to be ever writing an autobiography. I will say the Arlo Finch books, so much of my childhood is sort of in those, and so you can sort of squint and you can see it. You and I have been approached about writing a Scriptnotes book at a certain point, and the amount of work that it would take to do that and to have something that I’m proud of feels just daunting. And not a great use of either one of our times. So that’s probably not happening any time soon.

**Craig:** No. Also I don’t think anyone would care. I really do. I just don’t. I’m still amazed that anyone listens to this. I really am. You know what I say when people come up to me and they’re like, “Oh my god, I listen to your podcast every week,” do you know what I say?”

**John:** What do you say?

**Craig:** What? Huh? Oh. Okay. [laughs]

**John:** And we’ll cut there.

 

Links:

* [Wonder Woman 1984](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0451279/) coming this Christmas!
* Assistants and support staffers, please fill out the [#PayUpHollywood](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeJwPx8-eACD3b2-GMfkue6kGKdSiudlFa3wAX4oRMTaTg-fA/viewform?gxids=7628) survey today!
* [Uno Game Show](https://deadline.com/2020/11/mattel-propagate-lets-make-a-deal-showrunner-john-quinn-tv-game-show-uno-1234616703/)
* Read along with our Three Page Challenge selections:[RPG by Michael Seminario](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2020%2F11%2FRPG_3PageChallenge_MSeminerio_Submission.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=5145c7f2ec1a3b3f7d71d8bf68ea19a7132bc2f94a51edf6c4f05db77a776a9d), [Rodeo by Dwight Myfelt](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2020%2F11%2FRodeo.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=29792602e5c68aa1b8da3e65872ef04e7fa51b92067f102757186b02bbc15666), and [The Interview by Leilah Ruan](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2020%2F09%2FThe-Interview-2.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=87ab9351522e5e95cb8e4395885406345190d42ad0f80542922e200ecd8306b5)
* [I Want to be Where the Normal People Are](https://bookshop.org/books/i-want-to-be-where-the-normal-people-are/9781538745359) by Rachel Bloom
* [Melania’s ‘Auntie Gay’ Speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd2CBoZMO7U&feature=youtu.be)
* [Harley Quinn Cartoon Show](https://www.hbomax.com/series/urn:hbo:series:GXxis0w4EP8N_vAEAAACO)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Mike Caruso ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/477standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes 475: The One with Eric Roth, Transcript

November 20, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2020/the-one-with-eric-roth).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 475 of Scriptnotes. A podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show I’ll be talking with legendary screenwriter Eric Roth about his writing process and his very long career which is probably the envy of any screenwriter out there.

**Craig:** Screenwriters envious? What?

**John:** What? I mean, Craig, can you think of anybody else who has had the length of career that Eric Roth has had?

**Craig:** Well, you know, my go to on this one is Robert Kamen.

**John:** Oh yeah

**Craig:** Who is right up there. I mean, Robert Kamen as we like to point out stretches all the way from Karate Kid in the early ‘80s to Taken and more in the 2010s. So, he’s been crushing it for a long time. But Eric Roth is no doubt one of our all-timers.

**John:** Yeah. So the first movie I can think of that was Eric Roth’s was Forrest Gump. But that was at the midpoint of his career. So, his first movie credit is back in 1970.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** And he’s still working more now than ever. So he has A Star is Born. He has the upcoming Dune. He has a lot of other projects. He has Mank which he talks a little bit about on this interview I did with him which is a Netflix thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So he’s got a lot of great stuff out there. So this interview was done a few weeks ago on Zoom. It was for the Writers Guild Foundation. It doesn’t sound as crisp and clear as when we’re doing our live shows all in a room, so keep that in mind. But I think there’s really great stuff in here.

Craig and I will be back at the end for our One Cool Things. And a bonus segment for Premium members where we talk about, oh, that thing that happened this week. What was it, Craig?

**Craig:** The thing that was the week and that was our presidential election.

**John:** Yeah. So we’ll be back at the end to talk about that. But for now let’s transition to a few weeks ago and my discussion with Eric Roth.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August. It is my great, great pleasure to welcome you to this WGF event. We are here talking with the legendary Eric Roth. I’m so excited that we’re going to have a good long chat here on Zoom in front of 500 to 800 people watching us. So, we are in our respective homes. Just for folks who maybe don’t know your credits off hand I’m going to read just a shortened list of some of your credits. Forrest Gump. The Postman. The Horse Whisperer. The Insider. Ali. Munich. The Good Shepherd. Lucky You. Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. Ellis. A Star is Born. The upcoming Dune. The upcoming Killers of the Flower Moon. Producer on Mank. There’s so much to talk about with you. But thank you for being here. It’s a pleasure to see you.

**Eric Roth:** I do. I’m glad you do this. I said to you earlier they sent me a list of people who could moderate it and I don’t really know you that well and I thought, well, he’s a talented guy, why not talk to you, you know? I love that.

**John:** So I’m excited to get into this. And usually in one of these things we would start back in the beginning about how you got interested in screenwriting and all that stuff and we’d spend about 20 minutes getting up to something like the present time and then start talking about the things we should talk about. So I’m going to do it the opposite way. I’d love to talk about what your writing process is like, what you’re working on, how you work in October 2020 as we’re recording this. What does your daily writing life look like?

**Eric:** My writing life really hasn’t varied since I gave up the typewriter which wasn’t as long ago as you might think. Because I’m really a luddite. I still work and I’ve talked about this a lot, so if anybody is bored with it they can tell me, but I still work on a DOS program. I have two computers. And I think half superstition and half a fear of not being able to learn Final Draft or something. It’s a program called Movie Master that actually is what they formulated Final Draft from.

The problem with it is that after like 40 pages it runs out of memory. So you’ve got to make sure – it’s about an act break, you know. And so I can’t do anything with the internet on that computer. That’s just solely for work which is good. And I still have to print out everything and I can’t email on it. So, the problem starts to become if you’re getting lucky and somebody is going to do the movie, it’s on their computer with Final Draft and creating the real document.

Other than that I start at like eight in the morning every day. I mean, I always use the example of John Cheever. He’d go to work every day. Take the train in from Long Island in his nice suit and a hat and he’d go and worked in a basement in New York City in Midtown. And he’d take off his pants and he’d take his shirt off, worked in his t-shirt and his underwear. 12 o’clock he’d get dressed again, go have a martini lunch. Come back. Work till four or five o’clock. Get dressed again and go take the train home. So it was like a job. And a great job for him and better than anybody probably.

And I feel the same way. I’m pretty disciplined. I don’t do as many hours as John Cheever. But come one o’clock, I mean if I’ve done four or five hours that’s about all creatively I feel I can do. And then I’ll work again at night. I’ll start around 10 o’clock and if I’m going good I’ll go as late as I can go. If not I’ll just do an hour so I can go to bed.

If I’m really crunched I get up really early like three or four in the morning and see as much as I can do. [Unintelligible] I like to bet the horses, so that’s my afternoons a lot. I have too many children and too many grandchildren, so I spend a lot of time, if I could, aside from the Covid. I’m a blessed human being. I mean, I’ve been lucky enough to be able to – I think the biggest thing that I taught myself and it’s obviously to be successful to do it, but I tried to pick – and I’ve been wrong many, many times – but projects I felt would somehow enhance my own self number one, and two some kind of legacy that I wasn’t just writing things for pay, which is a nice thing too. But if I could have a choice why not something I really cared about because I believe wholeheartedly that passion is two-thirds of the game and the other third is this kind of bastardized art form we do which is really a craft of a kind. And you can be a great craftsman. I’m not sure you’re an artist as a screenwriter, but that’s a whole different conversation.

**John:** There are so many threads I want to pursue off of this, but I’m going to start at the most recent one which is the degree to which a successful screenwriter like you are is largely – there’s an aspect of stock picking. Because you have your choice of the projects you could work on. Obviously you’re initiating yourself things, things you get offered. And there’s a decision process about which ones you’re going to pursue. So it sounds like you’re trying to pick projects that challenge you. Are they the ones that scare you a little bit? Are they the ones that you know you can do it? What is the decision process? Is it about who else is involved?

**Eric:** I think in a more intellectual way I try to pick things that the themes interest me and then who are the people involved and the characters. And I’ve done a number of adaptations. People think I’ve probably done more than I really have. But, I mean, even things like Benjamin Button was just a bad F. Scott Fitzgerald story if it’s possible that he wrote something that was bad. But of course the idea was a guy aging backwards. And I never came up with that one. But the theme of that I said well that’s interesting to me.

Elvis Mitchell, if you know who he is, the critic from the New York Times. And he does a NPR show. He’s a wonderful man. And he said that he felt – and it sort of stopped me because I thought it was kind of accurate, and I’m jumping. My mind works this way. That my films are about loneliness. And so I guess somehow – and then he started talking about it, and maybe you can make that case and maybe you can’t. But it resonated with me. I think there’s some truth to it. So maybe I pick out themes that have to do with some melancholic kind of [unintelligible]. And something about loneliness, you know.

I never had my own room my whole life. So, I guess I don’t know if I need that. I mean, I lived with my brothers and then – my brother I mean. And then I went to college and had roommates. And I got married very young. And then et cetera. So, maybe that’s part of it. This desire to have human contact nearby. I get very kind of funky in a hotel room alone at night. So not that I do anything exciting. I get too aware of everything I guess.

**John:** Now you can chart some of that fear of loneliness over the course of the 15 movies that I listed. But talk to me about the movies that I didn’t list, because I’m sure over the course of your career there’s at least as many movies that you spent a tremendous amount of time on, you worked your ass off on, that don’t exist. And to what degree do those movies still stick with you? The scripts that you wrote that are not reflected in your bio?

**Eric:** I’ll tell you one thing. I’m very lucky that my batting average is pretty great. So I don’t have that many. I regret they never made a movie that Brad Pitt was – it was actually Brad Pitt’s idea, Hatfield McCoy, that I think is a really good script. I told him eventually, said I’m going to give this to Kevin Costner to do it on television, very successful for him. I liked that very much because it was like about – that feud was kind of very interesting because there was no difference between the people. It wasn’t like the Hutus and the Tutsis, where there was religious differences between the Jews and the Arabs. You know what I’m saying.

And these people all came from the same place. But anyway it was interesting. It came down to the coal companies paid one group for the coal that was under their land because there was a lot of coal in one area and not the other. So that was one.

I wrote a big space thing that probably I don’t know if it was worthy of getting made, but the idea was that three prehistoric men were taken – they were triplets I guess – were taken to another galaxy where they’re like sponges, you know. I’m trying to think what else.

**John:** I can see a loneliness to that.

**Eric:** It’s very lonely.

**John:** It fits Eric Roth’s canon of loneliness.

**Eric:** Hatfield McCoy, the main character is lonely. So that one worked. I’ve had, just bragging I guess, like 25 movies made. And some of them I think are better than others. And some are my fault and some are other people’s fault.

I think I’ve had maybe seven that didn’t get done.

**John:** That’s amazing. That’s a remarkable batting average.

**Eric:** I think I started slipping as the business changed in the sense that I was able to write kind of the movie star driven movies to a certain extent. And then as that changed, you know, as movie stars became too common there was a change of course. And so I think those became – A Star is Born is kind of important to me because it reestablished for me that I could still do this in a way. Not that I had a question mark. But I think there were a few things that kind of lagged in the interim. I’m sure there will be others that come to me that didn’t get done. There’s a few. And there’s a few I wish didn’t get done.

**John:** We won’t make you names the ones you wish didn’t get done.

**Eric:** I’ll name them. I have no problem. I’ll tell you a very quick story that–

**John:** Tell me which one.

**Eric:** So this one I think people enjoy. So I wrote a movie called The Postman early on. And I wrote it for Tom Hanks and a whole bevy of directors were going to do it. Good directors. And it was supposed to be a satire, sort of Swiftian look at post-apocalypse idea, was supposed to be after nuclear war. A man who delivers the mail. Etc. Etc. And it was very tongue and cheek. But I thought it was kind of a good satire.

And then a number of years passed and Kevin Costner hooked onto it and he made it. And during the making of it the writer Brian Helgeland who is a wonderful writer who did Mystic River and he won an Oscar and really talented man. He had done the rewrite and he called me and he said, “What do you want to do?” He was very generous. “Do you want your name on this? What do you want to do? Do you want to just keep credit? Whatever you want to do.” And I said let me check. And I asked my agent. I said what do you think. And she happened to represent Kevin Costner and said, “You’ve got to put your name on it. I’ve seen the dailies. The movie is amazing.” I said really. OK. All right. I’ll take my credit.

And the movie won a Razzie as one of the worst movies ever made. [Barbara] gave us a Razzie, so it was pretty great.

**John:** I want to get into sort of the profession and this idea of rewriting and being rewritten and rewriting other people, because we’ve both done a lot of that. And I think we can clear up some misconceptions about that. But I want to get back to a little bit more of the daily work that you’re doing. Because you certainly treat your writing like a job. It’s not a thing you occasionally do. You treat it very seriously. You said you’re at your desk at eight in the morning.

There’s a scene for you to write. What is your first step in approaching a scene that you’re writing on a day? Outlining? What are you doing?

**Eric:** Well to go a step further, if it’s an adaptation I’m underlining the book and I find I underline the whole book, so then you say where do I begin. I’m not huge on outlines. I know, and I think every one of my movies has had the same truth. The first scene has never changed once I figured out what it was. And the end scene. The only one I can remember is in Munich Steven switched it to be at the World Trade Center for a good reason. It was in a different location, but the scene was basically the same. But the middle is this great big adventure. So I don’t know what it is. And it’s obviously a little more concise if there’s a book. But if it’s more original writing, no matter if there’s a book or not, then sort of that’s what the journey is for me.

So when I start a day, assuming I’ve gotten through the first two or three scenes, hopefully when I leave the computer I know the next two or three scenes, what I’m going to write the next day. That makes me feel very good. I sleep at night. If I don’t it makes me a little anxious.

**John:** Talk to me about when you say you know the next two or three scenes, that you know in a general sense what’s going to happen or how you’re going to get through the scenes?

**Eric:** I know what’s going to happen. I know where the characters are going. That doesn’t mean it works out always, but the characters lead me down there. And as long as I can stay with as I say the theme that’s all important to me. Like for instance I’m doing this little thriller right now for Oscar Isaac and Ben Stiller that I think is quite good. It’s from Jo Nesbo who is a Swedish mystery writer. He’s pretty terrific. Short story. And it’s an oddball story.

It needs me to keep figuring out where they’re going to go next, because it’s not a chase per se but it is in that English style of Strangers on a Train kind of thing. And so I know for instance that I know the next scene is in Paris in a hotel. I know what happens there. I know they have to then figure out how to get to sort of a farmhouse. And I know what happens at the farmhouse because I figured out that he does something deceptive. So I know those three, so I’m hoping when I get there I’ll know what the next three are. I know the trajectory of it though. I know what the outcome of the script is.

So, I’m on my track. Now this one has been a little trickier because I tried to be a little probably – I think it ended up being more clever than half. I tried to make it a little more post-modern kind of like adaptation or something. And I’m still with that but I had to tone it way down. So this one I actually had to rewrite quite a few times.

**John:** Can I stop you for one second? You say you rewrite a few times. So this is as you’re still doing the first draft you’re making big changes? Or this is after?

**Eric:** I start on page one every day.

**John:** OK so you are that kind of classic, like go back and read through what you’ve written and move forward?

**Eric:** I read everything and I make little whatever comments, fix grammar and spelling, whatever else. And it makes me go through another process and makes me more familiar with it. And they do say though that if you’re going to spend your time doing that you don’t give as much time to the ending because mathematically you’re running out of time at some point.

**John:** But let’s talk about the first new scene you’re working on. So you’re talking about the scene that’s happening in a Paris hotel room. You know sitting down basically what needs to happen in that scene, but what is your process in terms of figuring out who is going to say what, what’s the action in the scene, like how it’s going to unfold? Is that just a sitting and thinking thing for you, or is that fingers on the keys kind of decision?

**Eric:** I think it’s a little more intuitive. I’ll give you an example. I’m doing this thing for HBO, a TV show that Alex Gibney is going to direct with Laura Dern. And it’s a six-parter. I’m just doing the first episode. A true story about a woman who is a psychiatrist and her job is to interview serial killers and recommend to the court whether they’re sane or insane to be executed. And so I’ve sort of just begun, but now I’m coming to the interrogation of the guy that becomes our lead character in the first episode. And except for basic stuff I wanted to get out where he asks her questions, where did you go to school. I mean, it’s sort of expository stuff that’s just bad writing.

But I just started writing dialogue between them. And so some of it works, some of it doesn’t, but I just sort of feel my way. And I’m pretty good at it. I mean, I try to write a little off topic. I think the subtext is much more important than textual. So, that’s a thing I’ve had to learn over the years and it’s not something that I think you’re just given unless you’re just such a wonderful writer. But the best writing is not talking about what’s going on.

And so in this one I’m just trying what’s it going to sound like between this serial killer who killed like nine people and her. And so try to keep human and humorous of some kind and also get as much information we can get out of it. So I just dive in. And I’ve always done that. So it’s not a matter of just self-confidence from being successful. I think it’s just – and I embarrass myself by sort of saying the dialogue out loud. I’m like the worst actor ever. Because everybody’s voice sounds exactly the same. Which does remind me, I mean, as a rule that you want to have everybody’s character be something unique and sound different.

This came to me in a way, even though I think I knew it somehow instinctively from being just I like literature, so I read a lot. That Michael Cimino, if you remember that director, Michael and I were doing a movie. I had a rewritten a movie called The Year of the Dragon. It was OK. But it was by the same guy who wrote Silence of the Lambs. But he had given Mickey Rourke a wallet that had the character’s full life, like pictures of him in Vietnam and his children and driver’s license. I’m sure Mickey Rourke never looked at it, but it spoke to the fact that he had to know that person inside and out psychologically. And that’s how I feel as a writer that you have to do that. You have to know every one of your character’s complete lives.

**John:** You’re saying that you need to know your character’s complete lives, are you writing that down or are you just spending time thinking about that? How much of that bio work is something that a person could actually read versus just stuff you are thinking about in your head?

**Eric:** No, I don’t write it down. Except for little scribbles. Like in this thriller I decided that she was going to be a – because I thought it was clever – that she was going to be like Gillian Flynn, like someone who wrote Gone Girl. So she’s an author which I think is interesting because then it makes you wonder whether this whole thing is just a tale that she’s spinning, you know. So then I started figuring how old is she? And you go through it. And what are her neuroses? I’ll give something a little bit away, but like in the Laura Dern one I have her being like because she’s always stressed because of these horrible people she’s dealing with, I’m going to try to make her like a kleptomaniac. I just want to see it works.

So, what does that say? And then what does that say about your relationship, because her child then becomes a kleptomaniac? You know, that’s what I want to try. I probably shouldn’t say this too loud because it’s giving away something. But it’s just interesting to me. And so I don’t think I’m wrong. I’m maybe not right, but maybe that is a question.

I always think I’ve done that, though. That I just said to hell with it. Let’s get old and go down like the same bridge. I don’t mind trying things that are a little bit out of the norm, you know.

**John:** Now, you describe this Laura Dern project, there’s the Ben Stiller thing. It seems like you’re working on a bunch of things simultaneously. How many different projects are underneath your fingers at any given point?

**Eric:** This is unhappily, because I’m not really – it makes me very anxious. But I do have them stacked up which is nice for me, congratulations, but it just happened to be they dovetailed. And sometimes that happens. And the good news is I spent four years on, or five years on this book, with Killers of the Flower Moon, which everybody should read. It’s a wonderful book. And my screenplay I think was accurate to the book, but it was the book and the story of very quickly Osage Indians 1821 – 1921 I mean – poorest people in America and discover oil in this terrible land in Oklahoma they’d been driven to. And then every killer in America comes to kill 184 of them for their money. And this really heroic guy comes in.

So that’s still, you know, that’s supposed to start filming once the Covid clears out, and it’s Marty Scorsese, in March. So I have that. So there will be continuing rewrites with that. Leonardo wanted some things changed we argued about and he won half of them, I won half of them.

So that’s happening. And then these other two are works that are ongoing. And then there’s some older ones that pop up and I have to then address, which is just a factor of having been lucky enough to have a lot of work and some things are just dragging. We had this whole situation that’s developed with Cleopatra. I had done like seven drafts of Cleopatra at that point for Angelina. And it became a mess with the hack at Sony and Scott Rudin and this and that.

And now the project was announced the other day that Patty Jenkins is going to do one with Gal Godot and a very good writer named Laeta, I forget her last name.

**John:** Laeta Kalogridis.

**Eric:** Exactly. And so I’m debating whether this is going to be worth me racing with them. Probably not.

**John:** Yeah.

**Eric:** But that’s an old project. In other words I hadn’t worked on it for five years or something. But I think, look, that’s a function of some luck. Some people have given me the opportunity. And obviously I’ve been successful at it, which sometimes by design and a lot of it is not, you know.

**John:** Talk about rewrites. So talk about the rewrites that you go through in terms of getting the project up to the point where you’re happy with it. And then the rewrite process after you’re happy with it to get other people happy with it.

**Eric:** I mean, when I’m done – when I feel it’s done I’m done. And then I’ll turn it in. I don’t like turning it in just to a producer. I usually try to go around them and turn it into the studio at the same time if I can. And then we get the notes. I have rules about notes and now because I have enough cache I can say you cannot – only give me bullet points. I say would you consider this character doing that? Would you consider…?

I mean, I don’t like when they write these ridiculous essays on showing how clever they are with the notes, you know. And obviously if I did something stupid it wasn’t my intention to write something stupid. So that’s notes.

So then I’ll begin to rewrite. And rewrites are hard for me because I think I’m more of an instinctive writer. So, then I’m lucky enough to have worked with some really great directors. Some who are writers of their own and that’s easy in some respects because they get it and we can work it out together. Like Michael Mann. He’s a very tough guy and is hard to work with, for the right reasons. But he’s a writer so we would battle things out. But he knew if I didn’t quite have it we could feel the direction. While on the other hand, who can I think of, Robert Redford was a little more difficult because he wasn’t a born writer. So he wanted to prove things.

Marty Scorsese and David Fincher are very different people but phenomenal. Marty is the most willing to have you be inventive. And he’ll figure out how to film it and if he thinks it works. And he’s very generous if he doesn’t think it works. He says, “Let’s try it this way.” And David on the other hand is very, very specific. Very literal in a great way and as smart as a whip. And really fights you to get to where you want – he says, “I want you to tell me what you’re trying to articulate.” He just has a different way of doing things. And they both end up in different places. Their movies look different and they’re different people but they’re both incredible experiences which is incredibly rewarding. Which will just give me the time that – I have a movie coming out called Mank that I produced with David and his father wrote and we worked on the script to hopefully bring it up to where it’s really great. But it’s his father’s script.

And it’s about Herman Mankiewicz’s writing of Citizen Kane and his world with Marion Davies and William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles. And I think it’s an incredible movie. I’m tooting trumpets here but it’s black and white. It’s as skilled as David Fincher can be I think. And I think it’s probably limited for appeal to people because it’s such a narrow subject, but it’s a master work I think because of David’s abilities.

**John:** Its appeal is exactly the folks who are listening to this Zoom right now. Because it is about a writer’s relationship with a director and a visionary film that may or may not come into being based on how people did the stuff.

**Eric:** I think one of the reasons David brought me on was because I’ve been sort of an insider in Hollywood in that way for many, many years. You know, I’ve worked with everybody from Kurosawa through Spielberg through whoever. So I’ve had many relationships with many writers, directors, actors. So I know the process. I know what’s wounding about it. So when he asked me what does it feel like to feel like you’re not going to get credit I can write that. I know what that feels like. So it’s a real experience yeah.

**John:** Well talk us through that. Talk us through advice for writers who are dealing with a director for the first time and what those initial conversations are like. How do you feel out a director and sort of understand what that relationship is going to be like in that first meeting? Because I’ve been through some of them and I’ve come in with assumptions. Sometimes I’ve been right. Sometimes I’ve been wrong. Sometimes it has gone well. Sometimes it has gone really, really poorly. What advice can you offer to folks who are listening about that first conversation?

**Eric:** I want to talk about sort of earlier in my career because I think it’s a little different now because I’m kind of cocky. I’m a little cocky now.

**John:** You’re a legend.

**Eric:** Well, a legend, so funny. But I can come in and I can back up things. I say you might want to [unintelligible]. Early on I did – this is a good story and it’s not [unintelligible] it’s true. There was a director named Stuart Rosenberg who had done Cool Hand Luke and he was a very good Hollywood director and a nice man. And I was really young. I mean, I was 19 when I went down and rewrote The Drowning Pool in Louisiana. And then I was on Onion Field with him. And Onion Field ended up getting made by a man named Harold Becker and it’s an interesting movie.

But Stuart and I fought for like two weeks over one particular scene. And I thought it was a great scene and he didn’t think it was so great. And he finally said to me, and this just always stuck with me that “you can leave it in the script but I’m not going to shoot it.” So that was the end of that conversation. And that was the truth. So at the end of the day if the director is not going to be flexible you are stuck. So, you better try to find a way to be as best communal as you can be and also make the scene as good as possible. So you have to find, I think, and sometimes I’m good at it and sometimes I’m not as good, another way to do the scene. Another way to tell that piece of drama if that’s what you need to do. And each director approaches it differently.

Amenable to a point and yet I get very stringent if I think that they’re varying from what the piece is about. And then I think – I’ve been lucky because the people I’ve worked with, I mean, in the main are really good directors. I mean, it’s also something I don’t think I could do. I mean, I tried it when I was younger and I actually won some awards, a short. But I always felt like this isn’t me. I thought if I went on to direct I’d be like a B-minus director and what was the point of that, you know? And I didn’t want to leave my family and a whole bunch of other reasons.

But the directors have been, I mean, I think have yet to figure out the way they want to get at something. And if you want to be a dick about it you’re going to have a lot of problems. On the other hand I don’t think you should just roll over. It’s a balance. It’s a tightrope walk.

**John:** Yeah. A thing that people have a hard time understanding about the job of a screenwriter is obviously we’re putting words on the page the same way the novelist is, but there’s a whole social aspect to it. You have to be able to read people in the room and understand what they’re actually going after. Even before you get to directors, initially with producers and with studio executives, find out what they’re actually really after and what the note is behind the note.

**Eric:** Yeah. That’s well said, John. In other words it’s really trying to read the note behind the note. Because the initial note will just annoy you. I mean, in most cases you probably thought about it. Just somebody gave us a note on something recently that they felt there was too much description and I took umbrage at it. Said I’ve been very successful with a lot of description. But I got it. In other words I think it made it harder for them to read. It was too dense. And once I settled down and I thought well that’s OK. So in other words you have to be somehow – unless they’re nasty, then you don’t need to suffer that in any way, shape, or form.

But I think you have to be finding a way to be as communal – look, it’s a communal craft, right. Even though I do believe it’s a film by is a director’s film when all is said and done. They put all the pieces together. The architecture, the ship is the screenwriter. And you’re not going to go on the journey without that. But the director has to get it to the right place in the right way.

**John:** How different is it now than ‘70s/’80s, your early credits? How different is it doing this job? Or is it not really that different?

**Eric:** I don’t feel it’s that different oddly because I guess maybe I just stay with my process. I used to, I mean, just on a personal level I had a lot of kids and a lot of little kids. And I used to love to just – they would run around and I would just write in the living room, sitting down to type something. But I don’t know. I had a couple oddball little interesting movies made in the ‘70s that probably would be, you know, interesting today if they were streamed. And then I had some big movies. So, I don’t know. I think eventually it comes down to feeling like the same task to me. But, you know, I’m looking, you know, it’s like my dad said when you talk how does it feel to be 80, or whatever he was at the time, he said, “You know, I don’t look out of those eyes. I don’t look out of 80-year-old eyes, I look out of whatever eyes I am.” And that’s the same thing at 75.

I’m quite – this is just a kind of sweet, sad thing, but lovely in its own way. I’m very close with David Milch who I think is our American Shakespeare from television. David has some challenges with some Alzheimer’s. So I went and visited him. I visit him like once a month. And he was talking about how time goes so. And I said sure does. And I thought to myself, gee, when I was 60 I said, well, I mean 15 years from now 75, or 20 from now, that seems like forever. Well, it was a blink. It was a complete blink of the eyes. And now I’m 75. I said do you have any regrets. And he said, “I wasn’t more generous of spirit.” Which meant he felt that he had been too selfish his whole life. And whether that’s true or not we can think about.

But it made me think. I mean, I think that’s an important kind of lesson. I’ll put that in something, you know. Because that’s just something important.

**John:** Thinking about David Milch and his tremendous success in television and you said the American Shakespeare and I can believe that, he was making television at this pivotal moment where it became just a dominant American art form in terms of a written art form. And the writers who created that were so acclaimed and rightfully. It’s a little frustrating to me. I’m wondering if it’s frustrating to you that we as screenwriters are writing the features that are so iconic and yet there hasn’t been the same appreciation that we sometimes are writing these films that are known for that.

If you were to go back and rewind your career 25 years would you have still done features and focused on features, or would you have been more attracted to 25?

**Eric:** No. First of all I think, you know, I was taught that television is smaller than life and that movies are bigger than life. So I still look at the 40-foot-screen as being 40 even though it’s irrelevant I guess now. And I’m not sure I’m as good a short story writer as you have to be, even though I think I’ve written some good TV episodes. I wrote one for David that they never aired because it was never shot because of this show getting canceled. I thought it was probably as good of writing as I’d done. But I can just be brave because it wasn’t sort of my betting the farm.

No, I grew up with movies. My first experience was watching like War of the Worlds in the Brooklyn Paramount balcony. And it was like oh my god. This is like something that takes me somewhere else. Then I was very big on psychedelics in the ‘70s and late ‘60s, so I liked sort of mind expansion stuff where you can try to go further and farther. So I never felt that way about television.

And I think the difference is that you have some incredible writers who are also directors though. And that’s a great advantage. Because Ingmar Bergman or Fellini. In other words you could start naming them, Antonioni, and then Francis of course. So these people could then realize what they wrote. So, I don’t think there’s anything better than Godfather II probably that has ever been done. Or to me 2001 changed my life in some way. So Kubrick was able to get that out of his writer and was able to write what he did.

I think, I don’t know, maybe there isn’t an American Shakespeare in screenwriting. I think part of that is because you have to be a director maybe to do that. And then maybe Chayefsky was, you know, of a sort. There’s probably a few others, you know.

**John:** Yeah, I mean, and Sorkin would be in that list, but he’s also–

**Eric:** Aaron is wonderful.

**John:** Tremendous television stuff that he’s done before this. Nora Ephron.

**Eric:** I would think, like Bob Fosse, he’s pretty amazing. I mean, he’s a director though. I think there’s a major advantage in being able to direct and if you’re able to be good at being a director.

**John:** I’m going to tackle some questions from our growing list of questions here. This one is about adaptations from [unintelligible]. He asks, “There’s a ‘don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.’ How do you negotiate what should be kept in an adaptation and what should be left out when you’re adapting a true life story?”

**Eric:** That’s a great question. We just had this discussion the other night because I watched The Trial of the Chicago Seven. And I thought Aaron did a really great job. And I first had a chip on my shoulder, I was a little jaundiced because I knew Abbie Hoffman quite well and I knew some of the people and I had been involved with [unintelligible]. Anyway, and then it got, I’m not sure, I have to ask him because there’s a scene at the end of the movie, because I think the move eventually really becomes pretty great. And he has a scene where someone gives a speech in the courtroom and I’m going to guess that he wrote a speech that was not what was there. And so then we got into a debate about what you can do.

I said, well wait a minute, this is like an historical event. And it’s a trial. And then somebody pointed out I had done the same kind of thing in something of my own. And so that I think I guess your first rule is you’re a dramatist, you know. I’ll give you another example.

I did a script for Tom Hanks called Garden of the Beast which is an historical book which was about the American ambassador to Germany during WWII who was kind of a very big Nazi aficionado. Spoke German. Had gone to school in Germany. And then he saw kind of the errors of his ways as certain things happened. But I dramatized a couple things that Tom objected to. One was that I had a scene – I don’t think this is a big deal – but Hitler used to watch King Kong like three times a week. And so I had a scene where he and the ambassador are discussing whatever the drama was while King Kong was being played. Now that probably didn’t happen. I don’t think that changes the course of it or anything. But Tom took to me to task for it.

And then I had Hitler offered him a ride back to the embassy and I had him get in the car with Hitler with all the people on the streets. And I wanted to see how that felt like for anybody being inside of that and with flowers all over them. Tom objected to that. And he wasn’t right or wrong. In other words so that – my first job is I think as a dramatist. And we say this actually in the Mank movie that you can’t view somebody’s life in two hours. You only can do an impression of it. And the genius of Citizen Kane is that I think it’s the first movie that showed, and maybe there’s a Russian movie, that showed a character from multiple points of view. That’s very rare. In other words usually it’s [unintelligible]. But if you have a wife you have her point of view. If you have a child.

The other thing is I usually pick kind of bad books. So, you know, bad books and bad plays make really good movies because one of the reasons is you can just go take off on your own. So you can change things. I think you have to be careful in certain respects to what is the sensibilities of people. In other words I don’t think you just blithely decide to change what somehow is slavery or holocaust. In other words I think you have to be very careful.

But I mean there is a criteria that you have to dramatize it if you’re a dramatist. So you’re going to combine things. And this Killers of the Flower Moon is a perfect example because that was where I realized I had done the same thing at the end of a particular courtroom that’s at the end of the movie. And I had dramatized something that was not happening there, but I wanted to have.

So, I say go for it, but be a little bit cautious because you can get your assistant kicked if you’re going to start rewriting history that’s affecting people’s sensitivity. And I have never tried to do that. But, yeah, I think there is a burden.

I mean, look, a lot of people don’t like Forrest Gump. They think it’s a poke in the eye at liberalism and all sorts of things. I don’t have the same feeling about it. And Bob Zemeckis and I are quite different. He’s very, at that time, more universal poke in the eye guy. He didn’t give a shit if he made fun of the Black Panthers or Ronald Reagan. And I was a good staunch, I was born as a red diaper baby and I had great communist beliefs. Became watered down over the years.

So the movie was criticized probably rightly in some respects, but I think as Quentin Tarantino said, “I think people have lost the sense of irony.” Because the whole thing is supposed to be – it’s supposed to be a satire, you know. But I think you’ve got to be careful of that is my point. I think you have to really look – and particularly today, because people are very aware of their everything – heritage, what they feel about themselves. I mean, they should. They should.

**John:** Speaking of Forrest Gump, a good segue into a question from JJ. Can you talk about the process of getting hired for adaptations in particular? How do you get started doing adaptation work? So I think it could be, you could talk about Forrest Gump, obviously many of your later projects they came to you with a book and you could say yes or no. But earlier one there were going to be projects where do you want to do this. Do you want to come in and talk to us about this? Your pitching approach to a book. What are those initial conversations like as you’re describing how you want to take an adaptation?

**Eric:** Well that’s a good question. The good news is that those were things that were presented to me by like studios. It wasn’t anybody else really. Or a producer. There was an entity. It wasn’t me bringing them a book and trying to stand on my head and say this will make a good movie. So that was I think ahead of the game. Forrest Gump came as a book. I didn’t think it was a great book. And the man who wrote it should rest in peace. He gave me something that was like a gift. But it was a little farcical for me. And then I thought well this is a good way to tell the story of this year that I just lived through with time passing and all that stuff.

And I’m trying to think. Benjamin Button was as I said a short story of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s. He just did it for money. He did it for Colliers Magazine and had no stake in it at all. So I had the sort of permission to do whatever I wanted with it.

Munich was a true story. I was rewritten on Munich by Tony Kushner who I thought did a pretty great job in certain areas. Other areas I still resent. Not him personally. I mean, we can talk about that getting rewritten if you want. That’s why I brought it up.

**John:** Well let’s talk about rewriting. Because that’s a thing I promised we would get into. So, obviously you’ve come onto projects where there was already a script and you were coming in there to do work on it. And you’ve also had projects that you started and then someone else has taken over the project. So let’s start with when you’re coming in on an existing project and there is a script and you’re talking with folks about stuff. What are those initial conversations and how do you treat the material that you got from the start? Are you treating it like you’re treating a book that you’re being sent? This is the starting place and I’m going to write a new script? Are you trying to incorporate as many scenes as still possible there? What is the decision process for you?

**Eric:** I think it depended on where they are in the sequence of getting the movie made. Because I would never want to go in and destroy somebody’s having a movie get made. I’ve some good jobs in more limited basis. I thought I did good on Black Hawk Down. I thought I did some good writing on that. Leonardo and Russell Crowe was in. Ridley Scott directed it.

**John:** Was it Blood Diamond?

**Eric:** No. Something of Lies or something. Anyway, my point being I just don’t think I did much to help them. And they didn’t want much. But I don’t think what I did was great.

On the other hand I’ve come in on things like Cleopatra where I started from scratch. There had been a couple scripts before I did and good writers, but I just had a different point of view. And Benjamin Button was another one. And usually if I have the time I’ll put in the effort and start over if I think there’s a way. Or I’ll just say I can’t be helpful. I think it’s a more interesting conversation about not so much the work but I’ve rewritten people where it’s bruising to other people. And it’s one of the things I don’t like about doing it. As writers we scavenge each other. And then they don’t have a – something I’ve always spoken to that when you fight for credit and then if you don’t get it you don’t exist in that sense, however much time. And I feel the Writers Guild should change that. But I’m in the minority. I felt like they should have an additional writing credit or something, because everybody should at least share in what they did.

But the Writers Guild feels in the main that it diminishes the credit of the writers that get credit.

And then I’ve had obviously people come in and rewrite me. And I haven’t liked it. I said, you know, you feel like you’ve failed, you’ve been rejected. I knew for instance on this movie The Horse Whisperer, I liked Redford very much but I lived with him for like two months, two or three months. And I realized at one point he’s going to look in the mirror and not want to see me there. And so that’s what happened. And so a good writer, Richard LaGravenese, came in and did very good work. And I’m still not wild about the movie which I don’t think had enough adventure in it, but not Richard’s fault.

But that hurt. I was wounded by that. And you sort of lick your wounds. But I guess I’ll give you a funny story because it’s about this. I think it’s about rejection, you know, which every writer feels from day one. And I asked Warren Beatty the other day, I’m dropping a name here, but have you ever – I don’t know why this occurred to me. I said have you ever been rejected in your whole life. And he had to think for a long time. I said are done thinking? He said, “Yeah, I wanted to do Fistful of Dollars,” or one of those Clint Eastwood westerns. They picked Clint Eastwood. And he said, “But I got to do Bonnie and Clyde, so it worked out OK for me.”

**John:** It worked out.

**Eric:** The only thing he could think of about rejection. He didn’t say there was a woman who didn’t want to go out with me or whatever.

**John:** No.

**Eric:** A man. Whatever he felt. But that was it. I said pretty good. I think him and I’m dropping another name. I worked for Mick Jagger on a thing and he’s the other one I thought this guy has never had a moment’s rejection in his whole life, you know.

**John:** We have real time follow up here. So Body of Lies was the movie that you were thinking about.

**Eric:** Thank you.

**John:** So we have 1,000 people here in the audience.

**Eric:** See, bad title. Bad title to begin with.

**John:** Not a good title. Not a good title. Titles are important. They help frame what things are going to be, the projects.

**Eric:** Oh boy, is it ever. And names, by the way. Don’t you think character names are key, too? Unless it’s a satire or something. If I see a name – here’s one of the things I don’t like about Dune. Because I had read Dune when I was like 15 and I thought it was OK. I wasn’t as wild about it like 16-year-old boys mostly are. But then as I went back into it now to do this version for a guy I like very much, I did a good rewrite on Arrival, which I think I did a good job on, for Denis Villeneuve.

So we were cogitating the whole thing and there was a character named Duncan Idaho in it. And I said wait a minute this is like the planets are billions of miles away. This isn’t a translation of some other language. That’s his name. And I said well how the hell does that work? But that was a famous character and still will be.

**John:** So you just don’t have characters saying his name aloud very often in the movie hopefully. So it doesn’t bum people so much.

**Eric:** I mean, it’s fun to do – I think if you can give characters to somehow reflect the tone of the movie, like I did something today. I called the villain in the thriller Mr. Lime. And the reason was because that was an Orson Welles’ name in The Third Man. So those few who will know that will – or they’ll just think that’s a stupid idea.

**John:** A question here from Ellen Cornfeld. She writes, “How to learn to trust your own voice when you are a people pleasure by nature and surrounded by smart voices giving you terrific feedback on your scripts?” So, basically really a question for you. You’ve written this thing. You had an approach. You had a point of view. There’s a thing you want to do. Now you’re getting these notes back. How do you stay true to your own voice and your own instinct when you start getting that feedback?

**Eric:** I think you have to find a different approach and try to hopefully make that similar to what you could then live with to be, you know, that says what you want it to say. It’s difficult because you feel inundated. There’s sort of a higher power that’s looking down and giving you these [theote] of notes. And obviously I have the power more now because I’m more successful, but when I was younger I’m sure I felt kind of a little buffeted by it.

But I’m not saying not to stick with your vision but I think you have to maybe find a way to do your vision differently I guess. And that’s probably I guess a little more communal in that respect, or a little more where you can mediate things. Because it’s not black and white I guess. And sometimes you’re surprised at the end.

What happens, I mean, eventually which is kind of funny is that you stake your claim on something and you really stick your sword in the ground and you’re not going to move and then you slowly move and eventually it’s gone and it becomes gone and you don’t remember even you were involved with it, you know, and that scene just goes into some void in the ether.

So, I think you have to be brave in a way. Be brave without being stupid I guess.

**John:** Always a good combination. I’m going to combine a couple questions here. People are asking about writing for an actor or writing with an actor in mind. Do you prefer writing something where you know who is going to be playing that role? Or would you rather have it be blank as you’re starting?

**Eric:** I think there’s an advantage to both. In many cases I’ve known who the actor was, so that was easier. Like Tom Hanks for Forrest Gump was the dream. Brad Pitt was Benjamin Button so I knew what he could possibly do or not do. I was a little more taken with in The Insider that Russell Crowe when he was hired I had already written the part and the part was very difficult because I couldn’t interview the real guy. So I had to go on basically who is the guy and I tried to then develop a character which you could always do. You say, well, who is this man who was a scientist for tobacco companies? And what does that say? That he wants to be a big fish in a little pond of scientists? Or he is insecure about his science knowledge? In this case he actually really just wanted to get his pension.

So I wrote what was I think a full-blooded character and then Russell came on and Russell had a lot of questions. And I can’t tell you the number of times I had to get on an airplane and go down there because Michael Mann didn’t want to fight with him and he didn’t want to have that kind of relationship. So I would go and say – because Russell wouldn’t come out of his trailer and I’d say what’s going on. He’d say, “I don’t get this.” And so you go through it and you hopefully convince him that this is the way that it should be. And then you make some accommodations. Things on that movie I’ll never forget is that Al Pacino called me one morning and he said, “You have a three-page monologue here. I could do it in one look.” I said if you can do it in one look do it. And he did. He did.

**John:** That’s good. It saves some camera. Saves some reel.

**Eric:** And he really did. He really did.

**John:** Eric, what’s been your experience, because I’ve had the same thing with actors who are incredibly challenging to deal with over little things on scripts and stories and I’m always wrestling with to what degree are they being reasonable but they can’t connect these dots either intellectually or emotionally they can’t make it work? And to what degree is it insecurity? With a Russell Crowe or with other actors you’ve dealt with how do you think a writer can or should interact with actors who are doing that thing? It could be on an independent film, a small independent film set that our people are working on, or a giant mega budget picture. What works?

**Eric:** I mean, I think rehearsals are really important. And read-throughs because I think you get a sense of what they can do or can’t do, or where there’s going to be bumps. Like for every movie I’ve written I think I go to the set, because I have anticipated what’s going to be a scene that’s going to be a problem. Or I’ll go to watch what I enjoy. But I think you have to befriend the actor in a good way, even if they’re a dick. And try to find a way so you understand their psychology.

I mean, I’m going to do it, and he’s a nice person, I’m going to do a movie in the future with Joaquin Phoenix which is a really tough subject matter, but he works very differently. And he really wants to get into the weeds and the emotions and the things. Like he doesn’t rehearse at all. He doesn’t like rehearsals. But I’ve already established a relationship with him and I think we intellectually can understand what we both want from it. So he’ll trust me to some extent and I’ll trust him. And some of that is just having the experience of having done it for so long, because I work with so many people.

But I remember as a young boy I was literally 19 years old walking on the set of The Drowning Pool, same Stuart Rosenberg had directed, and Paul Newman was the star. And they needed a rewrite and I came with my new pair of corduroys and my nice new briefcase and walked on the set. And Paul Newman said, “Our savior is here.” And I said good luck to him, me and him. And I don’t know they accepted me then. I guess I’m amenable. I mean, I don’t kiss ass particularly but I think it is a team effort of a kind.

So, if you can be smart about the way. I mean, I don’t think there’s any one way to do it, but I think part of it is your own personal skills with people.

**John:** As you’re talking about this 19-year-old you walking onto this set, if you could give advice to that 19-year-old you, obviously you made some really good choices along the way, but are there any other pieces of advice you wish you could whisper to that 19-year-old?

**Eric:** I think writing wise I wish I could be a little more concise. I think I tend to over-write because I’m a frustrated novelist. And so I write these long prose things and I think it probably gets in the way of things. So if I could articulate things a little more articulately in a smaller way. I don’t know. I can’t think of too many movies that I missed, in other words that I was offered and I said no. There’s a couple. The biggest one for me was I was offered to do Cuckoo’s Nest originally. And I was doing The Onion Field. And my agent said they’ll never make that movie. And then literally like a week later Jack Nicholson signed to do it.

And I did come back and I rewrote the fishing boat scene, because I was good friends at that time with Michael Douglas. But that was the only one I think that I said wow. But I don’t know, Bo Goldman who wrote it, even though he rewrote somebody, a guy named Larry Hauben who just out of the blue decided to write a script from it because it was owned by somebody. But Bo Goldman I think may be one of the better screenwriters who ever lived. I mean, he did Howard and Melvin and he did the best divorce movie, Shoot the Moon, I think. I haven’t seen it in so long. And Scent of a Woman.

**John:** All right. So, you’re going to whisper to him like do Cuckoo’s Nest but basically do everything else. Just follow your instincts because it’ll suit you very well.

**Eric:** Look, I don’t think everybody has that leisure. They have to work. So that you don’t get to always do – I think what you need to do though is try to do, and I’ll give you a funny example of this. So I had no money and I really needed work and I did Airport ’79 The Concorde. And I wrote a very wonderful line called, “They don’t call it the cockpit for nothing.” Anyhow, I tried to write, I mean, this is arrogance in a way, but I tried to write the best disaster movie, that’s what they called those then, ever made. You know?

And actually I got sort of half kudos for it. The critics in the New York Times said this is either the worst disaster movie ever made or the best. So, but I did try to make that something special for me. You know, I put in like Saint-Exupery about flying. I had Alain Delon reading poetry. You know, it was ridiculous, you know.

But I think you have to believe in what you’re doing and hopeful you make the best of it.

**John:** All right. Eric, thank you for making the best of it for all these amazing movies you’ve done and thank you for this conversation. I want to thank the Writers Guild Foundation for having us both here. So, they do amazing work throughout the year.

**Eric:** Yeah, they’re amazing. Amazing.

**John:** These panels are great fun but all the outreach they do to developing writers and other folks is remarkable. So please do support the Writers Guild Foundation. Thank you, Dustin, for putting this together. And, Eric, thank you so much. It was great to chat.

**Eric:** Thank you. I loved meeting you this way.

**John:** Yeah, it’s nice. Cool.

**Eric:** See you at the movies. Not really. See you on the television screen I guess.

**John:** And when do we see Mank?

**Eric:** Mank will be, I mean, I think late November/early December maybe. Dune will be next year. And Killers of the Flower Moon the year after maybe. But Mank I want everybody to look at. I think you’ll find it pretty special.

**John:** Exactly.

**Eric:** Thank you.

**John:** Great. Thanks. Bye.

All right, we are back here in the present. We are recording this on a Friday morning. As we record this it has not officially been announced that Joe Biden has won but it seems kind of inevitable that he’s won. So we’ll be talking about that in our bonus segment. But this would be the time where we would do our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing?

**Craig:** I do. So last week my One Cool Thing was maybe America. This week my One Cool Thing is the person we should be talking about, but instead we keep talking about this orange ding-a-ling and his nonsense. Or alternatively in a hopeful tone we talk about Joe Biden and the fact that he is going to be the new President of the United States. But the person we should be talking about Kamala Harris. Because in our ridiculously long short life as a country we have had zero, that is exactly zero, female Vice Presidents or Presidents. Zero. And now we have one.

And, also, she is a woman of color. This is the first Black woman to serve, aside from the first woman to serve as either President or Vice President. The first Black woman to serve as either President or Vice President. The first Indian woman to serve as Vice President or President. This is the most historic election since Barack Obama’s election. And I am just amazed and thrilled and I feel a little bit annoyed that Orange Thunder keeps stealing the limelight when this is the big story. That we have finally broken through the stupidest barrier of entry to high political office that we have. So congratulations us.

**John:** Yeah. And I hope that by the time people are listening to this podcast we will have seen her on a stage and Joe Biden on a stage and other things so we can say like, oh, that’s right. This is what it’s going to look like and that’s kind of exciting and cool. Because you just need the visual sometimes. And I think probably because of the pandemic we just haven’t had the visual at times.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I think when we see that that will be great.

**Craig:** And also good for all of us. More Maya Rudolph, clearly.

**John:** Oh, come on.

**Craig:** This is a huge Maya Rudolph boom ahead, which is good for everybody. We get four years of her saying Joe Biden which puts a smile on my face every damn time.

**John:** It’s going to be great. My One Cool Thing is two related things. First off is one of the few physical magazines I still read which is MIT Technology Review.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** This magazine dates back to like the 1900s. It’s a very storied magazine talking about technology and sort of how things evolve. And one of the fun things about the magazine is that they will show like 30 years ago, 60 years ago this is what we were writing about and sort of compare stuff.

The best comparison for it would be Wired Magazine if it wasn’t so gadget focused. It’s really just more about the overall science and technologies behind things. But the actual article I want to point people to is by Richard Fisher in this last month’s issue called How to Escape the Present. And what I liked about it is it was talking about how human beings grew up in sort of cyclical time. It was all just the seasons and they planted crops, they grew stuff, and your ancestor’s life was not different from your kids’ lives. Basically everything stayed in this little circle.

And eventually we started figuring like, oh wait, there was the past. The past happened. And we started to think longer about the past. We started to be able to think about the future and like plan for future things. He points to a moment in the 1700s where you started to see writers talk about what life would be like in the 20th Century and the 24th Century and had these sort of grand visions of things.

And his point is that we’ve sort of stopped doing that. If you look at sort of how we think about the future it’s really, really short term. And in fact we sort of are obsessed with only the present. And that we are on these incredibly short cycles. So we have the 24-hour news cycle. We have two or four year election cycles. And it makes it very hard for us to do the long-term thinking that we need to do. It’s sort of like a cliff we run into and we can’t think about what happens after that time. And I think, Craig, in our lifetime I’ve definitely felt that.

I feel like as a kid I used to have a better sense of where the future was headed than I kind of do now. And it’s weird talking about this after this election, because I don’t even have a good sense of like what happens next week right now. And this present-ism is really troubling.

**Craig:** Well, we are told constantly to live in the now, as if that’s a virtue. I’ve always been a thinker about the future kind of person, because I like it. Our brains are not very good at this. We know that. But it is true that our culture essentially has made us obsess with a belief that by analyzing the state of affairs in this second we will somehow be able to control what happens next, or get certainty about what happens next, when all we really know for sure is that we will never have that, ever.

So we are taunting ourselves and torturing ourselves with this feeling that well if I just keep watching TV certainty will be created in my mind. Are you like this John? People will text me in these situations. I don’t know why it’s me. And they’ll say, “Can you just tell me what’s going to happen?” Like I would know? I don’t know. None of us know. Everyone wants certainty and they look to somebody to give them some kind of reassurance. But we don’t know until we know.

Math is a beautiful thing. It became incredibly clear, for instance, that Joe Biden was going to win because math is math. And much like Covid it doesn’t care what Donald Trump thinks. So that was nice. But I agree. I that we are locked in this obsessive now-ness because an industry that turns our attention into money has risen up to dominate our culture. And so it will keep doing that.

**John:** But speaking specifically to our audience, people who are writing movies and television shows, I do think that we only think about the future in clearly dystopian terms. We basically have a model of The Terminator, we have Hunger Games. Basically Mad Max. Everything is going to fall apart and what it’s going to look like when–

**Craig:** The Last of Us.

**John:** Yeah. The Last of Us. Go for it, Craig. What’s it going to be like when everything falls apart? And sure, we can do that. But we sort of stopped doing Star Trek. We stopped thinking about the future in terms of optimistic ways. And I feel like there’s a need and a vacuum out there for an optimistic vision of the future and sort of what we should aim for rather than what we fear.

**Craig:** Well, even Star Trek in its most utopian era, which was its network era, created a very virtualized view of where we as a human species would go and then immediately flung us into space to start shooting people. That’s sort of what happens. Because drama is drama. And that’s how it goes. And the earth is always under threat. And the whales are going to do something. And this is going to happen and that’s going to happen. I mean, that is part of what we do.

**John:** Famously The Next Generation wanted there to be no conflict among the crew. And I was like you need conflict for story. So I’m not asking for no conflict. I’m just asking for a vision of the future that is expansive and possibly hopeful.

**Craig:** Sure. I mean, look, for art that is ultimately boring. What we like to see is triumph. So triumph requires bad stuff happening. The things that are the toughest are the ones – and you don’t see this very often – where there’s a vision of the future, there is a struggle, and the struggle fails. But then the purpose of that art is to say there but for the grace of God go we, can we figure our crap out and not be like that?

**John:** Yeah. A movie that you and I both like and refer to often is Her.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Which does posit a near future that is – the future doesn’t look bad. So his situation is not great, but the future itself is not a thing to be afraid of.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And just give me some more Hers out there, folks. I’d love to see it. Let’s make a few more of those.

**Craig:** Absolutely. I will not be delivering that. [laughs]

**John:** [laughs] It’s not in Craig’s–

**Craig:** Not coming from me.

**John:** All right. That is our show for this week. So thank you everyone for listening. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Rajesh Naroth.

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. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts. They’re great and they’re very comfortable. They make a great gift for the holidays. You can find them at Cotton Bureau or in the links in the show notes which you can find at johnaugust.com. You’ll also find the transcripts there.

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 are about to record about the election. So Craig, thanks so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** So, Craig, I went into Tuesday, well Monday and Tuesday, sort of getting into the election period noticeably more optimistic and hopeful than most of the people around me and on Twitter. And I felt like I wasn’t allowed to sort of express optimism because I was going to be ridiculed for it. And then as stuff happened on Tuesday I felt like oh should I have been more pessimistic. And then I realized like, oh, but being more pessimistic wouldn’t have actually helped this feeling right now. What were you feeling on Tuesday?

**Craig:** Yeah. On Tuesday I was feeling pretty confident that things were going to go well for Joe Biden and therefore for America and therefore for humanity. And they did. It was important to remind myself as Tuesday went on that we were facing an odd situation where the first votes were going to be counted last.

And this is something that I guess, I mean, look, on some level I’m sure most Republicans who are screaming falsely about fraud understand this all too well and they’re just yelling because they don’t know what else to do. I’m not sure Donald Trump understands it because he’s legitimately stupid. But the votes that are being counted now, those votes were cast before the votes that were cast on Election Day. And we knew that the votes that were cast before were largely going to break Democratic because for some reason, and I can’t explain why – I could – Democratic voters seemed more concerned about not getting Covid than Republican voters.

And sure enough that’s what happened. But therefore you had to be braced for the fact that on Tuesday or by Tuesday evening that things were not going to be simple. I was not onboard with the Ragin’ Cajun, James Carville, stating that it was going to be a huge rout and we would all know by, I don’t know what he said, 10pm Eastern Time or something. No. No.

**John:** Yeah. So I wasn’t there. It’s always hard to remember sort of what you were thinking at a certain point in time. But I was thinking that like, yes, if we did have a decisive victory in Florida then clearly it was going to be over. But when it became clear that it wasn’t going to happen that melting dread kicked back in.

It’s an experience I’ve felt enough in my life that I recognize what it is and sort of how I need to address it. And for me it was like go into the other room, sit on the floor, and actually just sort of doing the breathing exercises to calm myself down and just to not participate in the torture of it. And I just went to bed early. And that was the right choice for me.

Of course I’m thinking back to the 2016 election and the special episode that you and I recorded when the results came out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And that sense that time forked and we ended up on the darkest timeline and then 2020 was just like the darkest part of the darkest timeline.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so I was feeling on Tuesday night like, crap, am I in the coin toss where it actually went the other way? And that is such a terrifying feeling to know that, OK, this could actually all go horribly south.

**Craig:** Yeah. And so I did the same thing you did because I understood that being on Twitter and absorbing everybody else’s anxiety was not going to be good for me. What ends up happening, when people are anxious they’ll teach you – were you a lifeguard? I know you were an Eagle Scout so I figure you were a lifeguard.

**John:** I never actually lifeguarded but I’ve done a lot of CPR training.

**Craig:** Got it. So you know, as did I when I was going through that as a teenager, that when someone is drowning they’re very dangerous to you, because they’re in a full panic and they will try and drag you down. Not on purpose. But they will cling to you in panic and forget that you’re a living person and they can swamp you. And that’s pretty much what’s going on on Twitter on Tuesday. As I look around I just think everyone’s anxiety is just spiraling out of control and they can swamp me with this and it doesn’t have any connection to what’s coming. Right? Because we just haven’t seen it yet. It’s the thing of we’re looking at light in the sky but that’s old light.

So I turned off Twitter and I went and played MLB The Show 20 for quite some time. Did pretty well. Did pretty well. My character in Road to the Show has finally made it through his six qualifying years in the major leagues. He’s a free agent. He got a great deal. He’s a really good pitcher. That’s not important right now.

Here’s what matters. What matters is that it started to turn around as it was always going to go. And I never thought that Florida was going to be Democratic. I mean, yeah, you can fantasize about it. You can fantasize about Texas. And certainly Texas is moving steadily in a direction, so that’s nice to see. But it was – what did we all say? Like adults. This is going to come down to Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent Arizona. And that’s what it did.

**John:** It is interesting to wind back a year and think about sort of what this election looked like a year ago. And we were told like, OK, the Senate is unwinnable just based on the states and the races and that it’s going to be really tough kind of overall. And I think, yes, we felt this certain optimism going in and we are not the podcast to actually figure out what happened with the polls, but clearly something about the polls got it wrong in a way that has to be figured out.

I mean, the question of can you even poll the American public or is there something special about this situation. Because the 2018 polls weren’t so wrong. I think the closest thing that I encounter in my work life to this is when – you and I have both been through this – when we have a movie that’s opening on Friday night. Because leading up to a Friday night you get tracking. And tracking starts two to three weeks before a movie comes out. You start to see what the interest is among potential movie going audiences for this thing you created.

And you’ll hear like “oh the tracking is great, the tracking is not going so well, they’re going to spend a little bit more,” and it’s all this sort of – it’s basically polling but it’s for your movie’s opening.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Then, we’re here on the West Coast, we know by about 5pm or 6pm how the movie actually did on that Friday night because we get the East Coast numbers and it can be cause for celebration or it can be cause for absolute just devastation because you realize like, OK, we tanked and this is not going to work. And I’ve been through both and it’s just the same kind of rollercoaster.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s unpleasant. And that said tracking is fairly accurate. I’m pretty good at reading tracking. And so back when we used to have movies friends would call me and say, “Can you tell me what my tracking means?” And I would say, OK, I think this is what it’s going to be, and generally speaking that’s what it was going to be. Within a small variance tracking is pretty effective.

I don’t know if our polling industry is broken. I think perhaps what we’re dealing with is a political freak and that’d Donald Trump. And if there’s any weird hope that I have, because I know the next two months are going to be awful, 2.5 months, and I know that he’s not going to go away and he’ll still be out there. And people who like him will still be out there. But one day he will be gone as time does its thing and I don’t think that this is a movement that exists outside of him. I think this is just him. And I think he’s warped polling as well.

**John:** I agree with you there. Because the whole issue of what is Trumpism, because he has no actual central philosophy. It’s just a kind of narcissism. And what that looks like independent of him is really hard to see. And, yes, there are some common themes of people who support him, but it kind of feels like it’s a “him” thing and not something that can be applied to another person.

I don’t see Ted Cruz, for example, being able to take the reins of that horse.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And so we should acknowledge our ignorance about future events, but going back to my One Cool Thing from this week is be thinking about not just this next cycle but sort of an overall what are we trying to do, where are we trying to go. And that’s why figuring out how we’re dealing with climate change, how we’re dealing with systemic racism, how are we dealing with the projects that are going to take us decades is so crucial and so hard to think about when we’re stuck on what’s going to happen two months from now because we just don’t know.

**Craig:** Yeah. We are in trouble. And I keep looking back at this weird line in our history. You know, the McCain concession speech from 2008 is not old in the long run of it.

**John:** But it feels like a different lifetime.

**Craig:** Feels like a different nation. And I think in part that’s because between 2008 and now you see the rise of Facebook. And I think what Facebook has done to our national conversation is fatal. It is a fatal poison to our national conversation. It has united people who otherwise would have been separated by the insanity of their thoughts and statements. And it allowed them to – I mean, Facebook, when we look back at this there’s going to be a point where people say, “Wait, Facebook let QAnon be a thing for tens of millions of people for years.” They let it happen. And I don’t think we can wrap our minds around that yet. And we’re still dealing with it.

But what they’ve done, what they have enabled, is so horrifying. I don’t know what to do about it other than to say Facebook to me I look at the way I look at RJ Reynolds. A corporation that is just hurting people in our country.

**John:** Yeah. You can delete your account, so that’s what I’ve done.

**Craig:** And I have. Years ago, in fact.

**John:** And Facebook, yes, but there’s going to be other Facebooks. There’s going to be other things like that.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And just being really aware of sort of how something that can start off with one intention and become a very different thing. One of my One Cool Things last week was this book about money and it gets into the creation of mutual funds and how mutual funds became money and they had to all be bailed out. And how bitcoin became money and how basically things that start with one intention, it can become a completely different thing. And we just need to be really vigilant about what can be the next thing that sort of pulls the country apart again.

It apparently didn’t take foreign interference this time to have us all at each other’s throats. And so–

**Craig:** Well, the foreign interference is lasting interference. What they did was pour a lot of gasoline on something and then it’s still burning. I mean, the dumpster fire continues on. Because all foreign interference is is gasoline. That’s it. Putin just puts some accelerant on there. But he knew that our dumpster of racism was full. And all he needed to do was just set it off and it would burn for four years. And it is, still, burning.

And that’s on us. So if we want to be optimistic about it we can say maybe this needed to happen. You know? Like we had a Civil War that didn’t let quite all the blood out. Maybe this is what we needed to do and this will somehow let the blood out. I don’t know. But it has had a lasting effect.

My great hope is that once we get a grown up administration back of professionals we can not only wrap our arms around the pandemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, but we can also finally do the work that is required to harden our defenses against this very consistent, predictable enemy.

It’s not like we don’t know who they are, where they are, or what they’re going to do. We know all of that.

**John:** Yeah. Now, going into this, obviously to control the Senate would be amazing and there’s certain things you can do when you control the Senate that you can’t do otherwise, but the Trump administration has made it clear how important the President is just in terms of putting people in places that actually do the jobs that need to be done. And so that’s the Cabinet, but sort of all those roles in the government and sort of the trust in the folks who need to monitor the things that need to happen. Folks who need to actually mobilize the pandemic response. Just to have sane grownups doing those jobs is going to be so crucial and it will save hundreds of thousands of lives.

**Craig:** Well, what the Trumpy people call the Deep State, the word we used to use for that was Government. And the reason that the Trumpy people like Steve Bannon didn’t like the “Deep State” is because who those people were were the people who sat down and said things like, “I’m sorry, Steve Bannon, or Donald Trump, what you just said is either illegal or stupid. Or something we’ve tried a hundred times that doesn’t work. We’re smarter than you. We have more experience than you do. And we’re here to tell you you’re just wrong.”

And they didn’t like this. So, rather than say, OK, we will learn or get smarter or have the confidence to listen to people who have studied a topic their whole lives, or worked on something their whole lives, we’re just going to denigrate all of them or get rid of them. And instead fill these rooms with people that just nod along with the Chief Nut Job. That’s what we have.

And as a result–

**John:** Authoritarianism, fascism. Yes. We have all these things. It’s been bad. And so it will hopefully–

**Craig:** Get fixed.

**John:** It will get better. It won’t get fixed, but it’ll get better.

**Craig:** It will get better. A lot better.

**John:** As we wrap up election season, and it sort of felt like a show I was watching and participating in and I will miss some of it. I won’t miss most of it. But I wanted to single out some characters, some actual real people, whose stories I got to know in this show. Some people I’m going to kind of miss. So, Marquita Bradshaw who I only found out about very recently from Tennessee seems just amazing. And so she feels like a character in the story about someone running for Congress and she was great. And I was sorry she didn’t win.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Jessica Cisneros. Alex Morse. Abby Finkenauer who lost her seat in Iowa, she’s remarkable. She and I went to the same college. She was great and I just cannot believe that she wasn’t reelected. Mark Kelly. The last time I saw you, Craig, in person was at a Mark Kelly fundraiser.

**Craig:** It was the last party I went to before the country shut down.

**John:** Yeah. And Theresa Greenfield, also from Iowa. Again, just the kind of person you want to have in that office. And so my hope is that people will see these folks who ran, some of them won but some of them didn’t win, and will keep running because we need to have smart, dedicated people running for every office in this country to make sure we build a future that we all want.

**Craig:** Yup. Yup. Well, they’ll be back.

**John:** They’ll be back.

**Craig:** They’ll be back.

**John:** Cool. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Links:

* [Eric Roth](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0744839/)
* Thanks to the [Writer’s Guild Foundation](https://www.wgfoundation.org/) for organizing this event!
* [MIT Technology Review](https://www.technologyreview.com) and [How to Escape the Present by Richard Fisher](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/21/1009443/short-term-vs-long-term-thinking/)
* [Why Joe Biden is Going to Win by Kendall Kaut](https://kendallkaut.substack.com/p/why-joe-biden-is-going-to-win)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Rajesh Naroth ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/475premium.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 476: The Other Senses, Transcript

November 20, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode is available here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 476 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show we welcome back a writer whose credits include Get Shorty.

Craig: Never heard of it.

John: Out of Sight.

Craig: No.

John: Logan.

Craig: Don’t like it.

John: Marley and Me.

Craig: Stinks.

John: Minority Report.

Craig: Terrible.

John: Godless.

Craig: No.

John: And the new limited series, The Queen’s Gambit, on Netflix.

Craig: Garbage.

John: I’m talking of course about Scott Frank. Scott Frank, welcome back to the show.

Scott Frank: Thank you very much for having me back. I really didn’t think you ever would after the last time. But glad to be here.

Craig: We didn’t want to. But I guess there was some sort of popular clamoring, and so we have to respond to our many tens of fans.

Scott: Many.

John: The real reason I wanted you here today is I’m watching your show and it’s great, but it occurs to me that you may be breaking some longstanding screenwriting rules.

Craig: Oh no.

John: About what you’re allowed to include on the page. So it’s a celebration and also an intervention for you, Scott. Because there’s some stuff you’re doing you’re just not allowed to do.

Craig: Yeah. There are a number of gurus who have never sold a screenplay or much less had a produced credit who are upset. We need to acknowledge their feelings and talk about why you, Scott Frank, are apparently no good. But also while we’re talking about that I do hope that we get into a little bit of a discussion about why you, Scott Frank, are in fact spectacularly good at what you do. And I have questions about it, like how can I be as good as what you do. Things like that.

Scott: [laughs] Drugs.

Craig: Other than those.

Scott: No, it will be a relief to be uncovered as a fraud by these other gurus. Finally we can get it all out today. So, thank you.

John: And we also have some listener questions that I think you are especially well-suited to answer, so we’ll get to those later on. And in our bonus segment for Premium members I want to get an early start on Thanksgiving and talk about some of the things we’re actually thankful for in 2020 because this has been a really crappy year. But I think there’s some things to be thankful for, so maybe we can brainstorm about some things we are grateful for that came about in 2020.

Craig: How much time do we have for that one?

John: It may be a short segment. But, hey, let’s talk about The Queen’s Gambit. So, Scott, give us some backstory here. Because I think I knew it was based on a book. It’s a book from 1983 by Walter Tevis. How did you come to make this as a series? Why a series not a feature? What was your on road to this as a series for Netflix?

Scott: Well I tried and failed to make it as a movie maybe a dozen years ago. Everybody, since it came out, Bernardo Bertolucci I think was the first director who tried to get it made as a movie. Various people were in and out of it over the years. Michael Apted, Tom Tykwer. Heath Ledger was going to direct it as his directorial debut before he died. I think Ellen Page was going to be the star of that. And right before that happened Bill Horberg and I tried to get it made. He’s the producer along with a gentleman named Allan Scott, who is known primarily for being Nic Roeg’s screenwriter. He wrote Don’t Look Now, The Witches, all sorts of things for Nic Roeg back in the day and is also a producer and a theater producer and so on.

He owned the rights outright. And we were getting together with him and trying to get it made and no one was interested. And then after I made Godless I realized, you know, the way to do this as a limited series, not as a movie, because if you do it as a movie it just becomes about the chess matches and does she win or does she lose. And it’s sort of reduced to that. But if I can do it as a limited series I thought I can kind of get into her head space as a character.

And Netflix had passed on a few things since Godless and I figured they would pass on this as well and I gave it to them to read and Cindy Holland just fell in love with it and said let’s do it. And so we ended up doing it. And it came together so fast that I was doing most of the adaptation during prep. So, it was one of those, which is not my normal way of working.

Craig: There’s certain similarities between you and me, not just the irritable bowel syndrome, but also—

Scott: Yes.

Craig: That you and I both came recently from feature world and now find ourselves in limited series world, and I want to talk a little bit about specifically some of the freedoms that you feel in that space. And I also want to talk a little bit about your choice, which is again a choice that I’ve made myself, at least for now, which is to not do what is typical in the limited series space which is to get a room full of writers and have people working on drafts and all the rest of it. You do it all on your own. Is it a case of you can’t take the feature writer completely out of the feature writer? Or is there just something about the freedom of a limited series that doesn’t necessarily mean you need to go all the way into TV writer room ville?

Scott: That’s a great question. The answer is simple. I only know how to do it the way I know how to do it. And I don’t know – I’ve written things with other people and that’s fine, where we started and began collaborating, and passed it back and forth. I’ve done that a couple times now. And that was great. Were all great experiences. But for this it seemed like I wouldn’t know how to assign, you know, episodes to people. I write it like a long movie and then carve it up.

In fact, so much so that there were six scripts but seven episodes, because I thought I kind of guessed how it would be carved up in the script phase, but ended up really organizing it in post. And so because I also know I’m going to direct it I have to write it all, you know. I can’t – it seems like make work to give it to somebody and then take it back and make it my own after that. I just wouldn’t know how to do that.

Now, if it were a longer series and a different kind of thing I might want a writer’s room, but even then I would only want a couple of people. The idea of looking at a big whiteboard and sitting there – I know people really enjoy it and ordering lunch and all that sounds like hell to me.

Craig: Ordering lunch is the worst part, I think. That’s the part that would absolutely paralyze me for sure.

Scott: I’m too self-conscious. I take too many naps during the day. And I kind of only see things the way I see them, so it’s tricky. But if something began that way I suppose I could try.

Craig: And do you think that now that you’ve had this experience back to back with Godless and with Queen’s Gambit that – and let’s put aside things like rewrites and things like that, but just actual starting from scratch, building a building – do you think you’re going to go back to features or is this were you live now?

Scott: I don’t know. I mean, I’m doing a few things going forward. Two are like this, and one is a movie. So, I definitely – it just depends on the story and what’s appropriate for the story. And in both cases, with Godless and with The Queen’s Gambit, it just seemed like the limited series was a much better way to serve that kind of story. But there are other ideas and things I want to do that feel more like movies to me.

And the challenge for screenwriters going into the limited series world, at least it’s a challenge I felt, is to be disciplined about it. Just because you have more time doesn’t mean you need as much time as you think you do. And you can kind of spend a lot of time sort of getting in the weeds because you have a lot of episodes to fill, or more episodes to fill, certainly more real estate than a movie. And you have to be very careful about that. You really have to be careful about that. Because people – and also as people watch more and more of these things I find that they’re waiting for it to happen as they’re watching.

John: Now, in prepping for this episode you sent through this really amazing, evocative image that you said sort of inspired the look of The Queen’s Gambit. So can you describe what you sent through here and we’ll put a link to this in the show notes, but it’s a very cool image of a chessboard. So tell me about what we’re looking at here.

Scott: So, it’s from a hotel lobby in Toronto. I’m blanking on the name now but it’s got a chess-themed lobby. There are giant chess pieces in the lobby and this interesting chessboard setup as well. And when we scout the cinematographer and I, Steven Meizler, we always bring the red camera along and we’re always taking both stills with it and moving images with it so that we can see how we might shoot someplace, even if we don’t end up shooting there. And this place we didn’t end up shooting.

But he was taking a still of this chessboard when this little girl ran by in the yellow dress. And the board, the dress, the chair, the wallpaper, all of it was the show for me. I looked at it and I instantly zeroed in on it. And I’d been trying to find an image to give to Uli Hanisch in the art department something, because I like to do that. I like to find an image or two and then they create a kind of larger palette board from that. Because I like to have a super limited palette because then you can control the look of the show so much better. And that along with natural light, I just feel like you have so much more control. Whereas too much color for me starts to feel – unless you’re doing it as a riot of color, but even then it should be just there are only a few in there. It just makes it easier for me to control it all. I may be wrong, but it’s what works.

Craig: I like that idea of control. It’s something that you and I have talked about a lot over the years about the writing as well. And it’s something that I always admire in your writing. Full disclaimer, I’m halfway through, so listen, I don’t know. If you guys want to get into spoilers that’s fine. If it’s awesome, like she kills everybody at the end, don’t tell me that.

Scott: She does.

Craig: I said don’t tell me that.

Scott: Yes.

Craig: But I’m going to assume that there is a big chess match at the end that is either won or lost, or it could be a draw. But as I’m halfway through what I’m doing is I’m watching the episodes and then I’m going back and reading your screenplay after the episode. And what always strikes me about your writing in particular is how there is just such a beautiful amount of control within scenes themselves. And it’s something that I learned really from you. Well, I mean, I try and get there as best I can, but I think that for most professional writers they have some kind of good instinct to start with. That’s why they keep working, I suppose. There’s just a good instinct about what is the scene about, what is supposed to happen in it, what is its greater purpose in the overall narrative.

And then there’s this other thing that I guess I’m just going to call finishing. Which is the far rarer thing. Because when we start to craft scenes and put them together, even if our instincts are right and the scene is where it should be, with who it should be, about what it should be, the pieces, it’s like a jigsaw puzzle where there are gaps and some of the bits are rubbing on each other and it’s not quite perfect. And then there are people like you, and maybe just you in your way singularly, who finish it. Who make sure everything fits perfectly, seamlessly. No gaps. No rubbing. No nothing. It all is machined to within a micron of its life.

And I want to ask you because the effect – the reason I bring it up is because the effect on me, as both the reader and a watcher, is that I am being taken care of. That this car will not wobble and that the control is perfect. So that my experience is solely what you want me to experience. How you want me to experience it. Or at least within the range of acceptable reactions to your material.

Can you talk a little bit about that finishing aspect? The perfection that is required to take what is good instinctive craft and make it something beautiful?

Scott: Whoa. Well, my One Cool Thing today…

Craig: You want to jump right to the end? We can do that. I can do my impression of you for the middle part and no one will notice a difference.

Scott: I mean, thank you. I don’t know what I’m aware of as I’m working in terms of that. I just know – like when we were just talking about the visual stuff a moment ago, I’m just trying to be specific. And I think a lot about tone even as I’m writing. I remember when I was writing Godless I realized, oh, it has to be in a voice that feels like the tone. It has to feel like the old west without being silly or kitschy, or feel ersatz. It just has to feel like it’s both authentic but there’s this tone to the script. And it took me a long time to sort that out and figure out how I was going to do that.

And with every script, you know, if I can’t – this sounds silly – but if I can’t hear it I can’t write it. And if I can’t hear the way people are talking it means I just don’t know anybody. And the character of the screenplay comes through the character that I’m writing about in a way. It’s almost like there’s a subtle point of view change that sometimes happens. So in the case of The Queen’s Gambit I was writing from Beth’s point of view. It’s really always in her point of view. And so that helps me with the tone, because I feel a certain kind of tone there. And it was very unusual. That’s what I loved about the novel. And so I’m trying to keep that in the script.

And what happens is I think many writers embrace the mechanical, or they lean into the mechanical because it’s so much easier to understand and see. If you follow a template, if you write an outline and then follow your outline. If you have all these things that are supposed to be in a good scene then you have a good scene. So, frequently you end up with scripts that look like scripts but read like nothing. And so what I’m always trying to sort out is what is the tone. And so I think what you describe as finished or even perfect as you said is for me more just specific. And what is it that makes this specific?

And in terms of the idea of control, you can tell when you open a novel or you read a script the first page. You don’t know whether you’re going to like the script or not, but you know if it’s somebody’s got you or not. I don’t mean hooked. I mean you know they’re in control.

Craig: Like they’re holding you in their hands. Yeah.

Scott: They’re in control. If they’re doing some generic description of something stupid you know they can’t write. You know they’re not going to spin good yarn for you.

Craig: Right.

Scott: So you’re looking for what is the kind of specific thing that brings me into it. That tell me what I’m looking at in a way that doesn’t feel like it’s telling me what I’m looking at. And you only do – you really do – only get two senses in a script. You get sight and you get sound. And so you’re using what do we need to see and what don’t we need to see. What’s important? What things will you describe in this room that will tell me what the room is in the least amount of words? And do you even need to describe the room first?

Frequently when you shoot a scene you’re starting close and you don’t know where you are until you need to know where you are. And then that rhythm is a different kind of rhythm and tells a different sort of story from a different – has a different feel to it. So it becomes feel. And so I don’t know if I’m thinking about it so much as I’m aware when I’ve lost specificity. I’m aware when the tone has changed. I kind of come out of my trance and go, wait, what’s wrong here.

John: All right. Well let’s get specific and actually look at your pages here.

Craig: Rip these apart.

John: Let’s take a look at the first two pages.

Scott: Tear them apart.

Craig: Tear them apart.

John: From the first episode. Because they are terrific and I feel like the image that you shared with us is so closely related to how your series is opening. That shallow focus that you’re kind of in a dream space as we’re beginning. So we’ll put a link to these first two pages in the show notes. But we’re opening in this Paris hotel room. A knock on the door. “Mademoiselle?” A splash. Someone stirs in a bathtub. More knocking. And we’re hearing things. We’re seeing some things but it’s mostly a sound experience. “Mademoiselle Harmon? Etes-vous La?” We make out a face in the dark. Breathing. Watching. Frantic pounding on the door followed by, “Mademoiselle! Ils vous attendant!”

Finally in the darkness, “I’m coming.” So we finally get to see Beth here. She’s getting herself out of the water. I remember as I was watching this how you established this room and we’re not quite sure what the space is we’re in, but suddenly the curtains are being pulled back. We establish that we are in a fancy Paris hotel room. She is clearly a mess. She needs to leave but we’re not sure why she needs to leave. Is she trying to just get out? Does she need to go to some place?

Then we’re going downstairs and we’re walking through this crowd as she’s going into this giant ballroom and then we finally get to the chessboard. She sits down and she says, “I’m sorry.”

They are two terrific first pages. We often do a Three Page Challenge on the show and I would say, Craig, I mean, you could have your own opinion but I think we would talk favorably about–

Craig: No. They’re garbage.

John: These pages.

Craig: Let me explain why these are garbage. [laughs]

Scott: Thank you, Craig.

Craig: No, the thing that I love about these on the page is how dynamic they are. Meaning the way that we talk about dynamics in music. Soft. Loud. Quiet. Rest. Play. Fast. Slow. Things keep getting changed. So we’re in the dark and then we’re in the light. And then we’re in more light, because the curtains open. And then we go from disheveled and a mess to beautifully made up and gorgeous. We go from a small space into a large space. We go from silence to then cameras. And when I see, “And now we hear one sound,” and the word one is italicized, “THE WHIR OF CAMERAS. A DOZEN PHOTOGRAPHERS gathered at the entrance snap her picture.” I see it. I hear it.

Not only do I see and hear it. I know where everyone is standing. That’s the beautiful. If you write well it means you saw it and you heard it so clearly that the people reading it can see it and hear it so clearly. That’s the point. And I try as best as I can to emulate this basic method.

And, John, you and I have talked a lot about transitions. And here every single scene number, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, on page one and two, has a transition. Every single one. And it’s a transition – even like for instance the transition between 6 and 7 is not just from a hallway into a giant ballroom. But it’s punctuated by “a hundred heads turning toward her” in that ballroom silently when the doors open. That’s what I’m talking about.

John: But let’s also be clear what you’re not talking about. You’re not talking about literally cut to with a colon or a transition to with a colon.

Craig: You don’t need to.

John: We don’t see any of that on these two pages. Instead it’s just that naturally, logically as the action is flowing we can feel the transitions moving us from this moment to this moment. And it feels natural. Everything is falling forward in a good way.

Craig: Yeah, like cut to is actually not a transition. Cut to is simply an acknowledgment that a transition is about to occur. But the transition itself is defined by the difference of things. And so what Scott does really, really well here, we’ll keep talking about him like he’s not here—

Scott: Great.

Craig: Is constantly considering – because you’re not – is constantly considering the difference between things as he moves from scene to scene. And this is what I mean about completion. These are complete pages. Every single thing has been thought through. We do say specificity a lot. Sometimes I think that the word specificity becomes too generic in an ironic way because it can be applied in so many different ways. So to just zero in a little bit more on specificity, what he’s doing is thinking constantly about how big or small, how quiet or loud, how full of people, how not full of people. Power dynamics. She is at one moment bigger than a little girl, smaller than a room full of people. Every single moment is completed like this. This is how you write.

All you need to do if you want to be a good screenwriter is be as good as this. No problem.

John: Now, I said at the start this was going to be a celebration of Scott Frank, but also an intervention because one of the things I noticed here on this first page.

Craig: Seriously. My god.

John: And we have to talk about this. “We can just make out a A FACE in the dark.”

Craig: We?

John: We. Scott Frank, you’re using “we hear” and “we see” throughout the script. I did a search. 47 times you are doing “we see” or “we hear.”

Craig: Oh my god.

Scott: Oh my god.

John: In one script.

Craig: You’ve done the worst possible thing 47 times.

Scott: I’m so ashamed. I’m so ashamed. A couple of things. I also never write “cut to” ever unless it’s in the slug line because I need it to make the transition felt in a certain way. Cut to is a waste of time and a waste of space on a script because if you don’t know it’s a cut then what. I mean, Tony Gilroy’s scripts are great to read. They’re all cut to. They’re kind of a version of what Bill Goldman used to do. But he doesn’t use slug lines. So it’s OK. I use slug lines and I feel – I mean, it’s whatever conveys the image. Whatever conveys what you’re doing.

And transitions, because I’m so pretentious I will quote Tolstoy.

Craig: Oh god.

Scott: Because like all screenwriters do. Tolstoy said transitions are the most important part of storytelling. And they’re certainly the most important part of movie storytelling because it’s all transitions. It’s not like you’re writing a play where you’ve got to get them off stage and on stage. You’re using transitions to create rhythm. You’re using transitions to create tone. Humor. Horror. Whatever it is, there’s another tool that gets ignored because people just end their scene and they go, OK, where am I now. And they don’t think about where they were. And they don’t think about how they might dovetail.

And you don’t have to get cute every time. But you have to feel like there’s a real transition happening. And good novels do that. Good storytelling does that. And so there is that. And the cut to feels like it’s in the way for me. There’s too many things that people don’t even really read anyway. Why is it in the script? Dissolve. I rarely do it, and if I do need it for a certain reason it’s in the slug line so it doesn’t take up any room.

Craig: Right.

Scott: And I want you to read it. I actually need you to read it. It’s not a format thing. It’s a storytelling thing. There’s a difference. People, again, lean into format because it’s easy to remember the eight things about formatting.

Craig: Like don’t use “we see.”

Scott: We’ll get to that. So, yeah, and I love using it. And I use “as” as the first word too often after a slug line. As we…whatever it is. It’s just whatever feels right and sounds right is fair game for me or for anyone.

John: Now I want to talk about fair game though, because one of the things you said in your description well this is an audio-visual medium, you can only write what we can see and what we can hear, and that feels true. I mean, we’re probably not cheating specifically on those things. We’re not describing smells. We’re not describing inner mental states like a novelist. Like a novelist has the ability to take you fully inside a character’s experience and describe things that we as screenwriters don’t describe.

But I do wonder whether we are over-learning this lesson in saying that you can only write about what you can see and what you can hear because just looking at your pages here Scott I think we are getting a sense of those other senses through this. The way that her wet clothes are clinging to her. You’re not describing the smells of that room. You’re not describing what the liquor is that she’s using to swallow the pill tastes like. But those are experiences that the character actually has. And so I do wonder if sometimes as we talk about screenwriting as being just what you can see and what you can hear we may be doing ourselves a disservice because good writing actually does involve all the other senses even if a person watching those movies isn’t directly experiencing those.

So I wanted to explore that a little bit.

Scott: So, yes and no. Or no and yes.

John: Please.

Scott: Right train, wrong track. So, I would say what you’re smelling or thinking you’re smelling when you’re reading that is teed up for you by the description. And the tone of it. And what a screenwriter or writer is choosing to describe for you. They don’t have to say what it feels like and what it smells like.

I’m allergic to getting into too much other than sight and sound only because most often it’s done out of lazy writing. Most often it’s done because they haven’t done the job as a screenwriter already. It’s like when you read the introduction of a character and you get this whole thing about their life and he’s ambitious and he wishes – the audience doesn’t get to read that shit. They don’t get to see that. So if we don’t know who they are from their behavior and the first words out of their mouth, or have a good idea at least, then you failed.

And so the same thing happens with the other senses. Writers who try to do that, it becomes purple. They’re doing it because it’s stylistic. And it’s like this thing that we’re going to do and we’re going to describe this.

I find it not helpful and it gets in the way. So, you want to get out of the way. If you want to have rhythm and flow and feel like you’re moving forward, to describe smells and things stops you when you’re writing a movie. It doesn’t when you’re writing a book and you can describe why someone is smelling something or what it makes them think or whatever. Here if you convey enough sense of the scene you’re going to get all the other senses. You’re going to see it all. It’s going to be as I said teed up for you. That’s the trick.

John: So that’s what I want to push towards is that sense of you’re using the tools you have, which are what you can see and what you can hear, to create those senses that you’re not actually describing. So I’m not trying to argue for we should all be describing smells or textures, but I think you are making choices in terms of what the characters are doing, the environments you’re putting them in that naturally lead to those other senses. That give us a sense that these characters exist in a real world where they would be experiencing these things. They’re experiencing heat and texture and smell.

Scott: Yes. But that takes us right back to specificity. And that’s about choosing the right details that throw off enough description and feeling and tone as opposed to saying it’s a well-furnished apartment. You know? So you pick the things, the telling details are everything. And that’s what writers ignore. They kind of race through the description or they over-describe stuff that really has nothing to do with anything.

Craig: I mean, where you find differences is where I’m always fascinated. Where you present things that are different than what I would assume on the default.

John: Well, I want to talk about the senses as sort of my thesis for this episode which is that obviously sight and sound are crucial for screenwriting. Smell, taste, and touch are things we don’t directly put on the page, but they’re things that characters would know about and explore. And those are the five senses we most often think about. But there’s actually a bunch more and I see some of them in your first episode. The sense of movement. The sense of where we are at in a space. You move that camera a lot. And the sense of balance. Is a character standing on her feet or not standing on her feet? You’re finding visual ways to show balance.

Pain. Time. Temperature. Thirst. The sense of hunger or fullness. The sense of tension or stretch. These are all things that we actually feel physically that we have characters in spaces who can do these things. And so I want to make sure that as writers we are not just painting pictures for people, but we’re actually thinking about what it feels like to be that character in that space. I worry if on this podcast and as we talk about screenwriting in general we’re not emphasizing this enough in terms of what does it actually feel like to be in that place. And once you do that how do you find ways, how do you find actions that characters take that can sort of reveal those things. How do you make people feel like they are inhabiting these beautiful rooms that we’re drawing for them?

Scott: If we were in the room together right now I’d hug you, John. Well, actually if we were in the room together I couldn’t hug you because of Covid. But I would bump elbows with you. That is exactly the goal. That’s what you what to feel like. And I think the disconnect comes from how you convey that. How do you write descriptions or write words, the most basic way of putting it, that throw off those other feelings? And that, again, is the thing.

And people – it goes back to a couple of things. It’s a way of thinking. It’s not what Craig said is picking out different details than someone else would. It’s just a way of thinking. And thinking about this stuff is a way of thinking. It’s not a template. It’s not even rules. If people are telling you not to say “we see” or “we this” or “we that” then your script isn’t very good anyway. Because if it’s a really good story–

Craig: Right. No one cares.

Scott: Then no one is going to notice what you did. I mean, I read a Coen brothers’ script recently that was like formatted in Microsoft Word somehow. And I don’t even know – but it was a great read. It was so good. And it was not particularly screenplay-ish. But still because what they were saying was so great to read.

And so people get hung up on the rules in lieu of being creative. And so it’s a way of thinking. It’s a way of thinking. And you can get stuck. You can become so mechanical if you’re writing to the rules all the time. You know, you just have to be able to spin yarn. And what makes a good yarn? What are those things? And you can analyze it backwards from the end of a story. You can say, yes, you need conflict, and you need this, and your character. And you shouldn’t have someone show up on page whatever. But you know what? I have new characters that have shown up on page 90. I’ve had 30-page opening scenes.

Craig: I’ve seen them.

Scott: Melvin and Howard is a 20-minute opening scene. I mean, I’m going back but I always was blown away by that. They’re singing Santa’s Souped Up Sleigh in the front of the truck and he wins an Oscar.

Craig: Star Wars.

Scott: Star Wars. There you go.

Craig: Goes on forever before we meet Luke. It’s 25 minutes or something.

Scott: The Godfather.

Craig: Right. It’s a wedding. It’s a wedding. Absolutely. A lot of these kinds of analyses I always say are like pathologists showing you a corpse and saying this used to be a this, and this used to be a this. But it’s not the same thing as making life. And one of the things that I find fascinating about the way you evoke these things that we’re talking about is whether you are doing it intentionally or not very often you are relating these kind of intangibles through relationship. Rather than just sort of saying this person is now cold. Even in these first two pages there’s a relationship between her and a voice outside that is causing her to emerge from this kind of pseudo drowning state. And then when she’s getting ready there’s a guy in her bed that she doesn’t even know and we don’t even see his face, but that is a relationship. There’s a sense that there are witnesses. That there is a contrast between her and another person.

When she’s coming downstairs that little girl is looking up at her and witnessing her and things are happening between them. There is a relationship. When she gets her period for the first time, you know, a lot of writers I think would just have her in the bathroom going, “Oh no, what do I do? There’s blood everywhere.” And then she would come out and we would see that she had handled it. No. Another girl comes in and they have a discussion. There is a human connection. And from those human connections that you create, whether there’s a conversation, or they’re silent, you are able to convey a lot of these intangibles and just for my money that’s always more interesting.

And it’s always more true than it is when it is just sort of fabricked in there and meant to be evocative for evocation sake.

John: What you’re describing Craig is in addition to sort of like the standard list of senses, we also have – people have cognitive senses. They have the ability to understand how they’re relating to other people. That they’re being watched. They understand connections between things. And we understand connections between things. So we know what it’s like to be that girl in that situation even if we have not actually had our period then. We know what it’s like to feel the need of trust or fear or disgust. We know what those things feel like. And a good writer is able to evoke these things and can put some of that stuff in subtext rather than having to have direct conversations about those things.

Craig: And the relevance therefore is implied. So it’s not just purple. And it’s not just description for description sake. Or look at the lusciousness of my scene. But we understand that there is something with which we can identify. Something that has some universal meaning for us and this is the best fullest use of what we can do.

It is amazing what you can do on a page. You know? It’s amazing. When you read something really well done it’s remarkable how full it is. Which is why I get so lava-incensed when I hear people say don’t direct on the page and all I want to say is that’s all we’re doing. That is literally what we’re doing. We are directing a movie on the page. We are creating a full space. And then the director, whether it is you, Scott, directing your own work, or somebody else directing your work, is hopefully translating that from the space you’ve created on the page to the space in the real world.

But this is what we do. And when it’s done well like you’ve done it here it’s just beautiful. And, congratulations. I mean, it’s a hit. I know Netflix says that five billion people watch it because anyone who watches four seconds of a Netflix show counts, but I know even in real terms it’s a hit. What are they saying, is it up to 78 trillion people?

Scott: I don’t know. Actually if you watch it you have to watch all of it. You have to watch over half of it.

Craig: Well, that’s real.

Scott: They don’t count people who turn it on and turn it off.

Craig: Oh, I thought that they were doing that like two minutes thing.

Scott: No, there’s something they have as part of it. But I don’t know the exact numbers.

Craig: Here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter. Netflix is such a black box when it comes to that. But we can tell over on our side. Like I know when people are watching something on Netflix.

John: The discussion you have about it.

Craig: And this is being watched. This is a hit. Which I don’t mean to sound vulgar, but we make these things to be watched and this is being watched in a massive way. And I love that. I love that a show about a lady who plays chess is being watched in this massive way. It wasn’t always like this. You know, television has come a long way.

Scott: It’s very confusing. You know, there’s so much to talk about outlining and this and that. And I don’t know how to write an outline or treatments, but what I do outline are scenes. And if people put that same kind of thought into well what’s going to happen in this scene, and spent a lot of time in the scene and realized, oh, I don’t have enough character here. I don’t know who these people are. What am I going to do with them? I outline scenes before I write them. And then I write about the scene and, you know, do everything but write the scene until I end up suddenly it just starts to become a scene. Unless I hear dialogue right away I’ll start with the dialogue and just write dialogue and then begin to shape it with other things.

And I think that’s really important. The other thing that I would say, if people spent less time worrying about format and anything else and just focused on character, and just focused on who they’re writing about. I get stuck every time around page 60. I don’t know what to do. Because I realize I don’t have enough character. I don’t have enough character to figure out where we go next. So the characters are either behaving because the script says so, which is a pet peeve of mine, or I’m just thinking, OK, and then this happens, and then that happens. I’ve lost all of it.

And so, you know, if you spend a lot of time just thinking about who you’re writing about, every character. Even if they only have a line or two. They should be someone that’s understandable and readable. And so that helps you. Then when you get to your scenes you have all this information that you have that you can use to show, give it an attitude, what’s happening, how would they respond here, what would be the honest way they would respond. And maybe in your outline, they have to disagree here, but if it doesn’t feel like they would disagree then you need to either, A, have them agree and figure out what’s going to happen, or figure out what you did wrong where they’re not disagreeing anymore. It’s no longer true to the person you’ve created as opposed to again what the script says so.

Craig: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Truth to who you have and what would really happen there. I think the biggest mistake that is made by every writer, every writer, I mean, we all do it and then hopefully we catch it and fix it, is writing something that just wouldn’t be what would happen. Sorry, it just wouldn’t happen that way. You wouldn’t say that. You wouldn’t do that. There’s nothing that feels less satisfying than someone making a great sacrifice where you’re like would you though? Would you? Well there goes your big moment. It just doesn’t work.

Scott: Or the boss who doesn’t believe you or whatever just because – or the parents who don’t believe you. I’m telling you. I saw him. He’s a monster. No, he isn’t.

Craig: No, he’s not.

Scott: You know what? You got too much sugar. Whatever it is.

Craig: You’re not going to take even a moment to think maybe?

Scott: And you’re missing really good character filigree and plot stuff you can explore to actually get to that point. Instead of just skipping to it, maybe by earning it you may actually create some interesting character facets or something that would get you there so you believe it. Why don’t they believe me? Why don’t they want to believe Jack Bauer is trying to save the world for the 50th time?

Craig: I know.

Scott: But this time he’s wrong.

Craig: I know. If Jack Bauer shows up, if Jessica Fletcher shows up and says I think it’s murder, it’s murder.

Scott: It’s murder!

Craig: It’s absolutely murder. There’s no question.

John: So Jessica Fletcher is here to solve crimes. Our producer, Megana Rao, is here to answer our listener’s questions.

Craig: Segue Man.

Scott: Nice. Transition.

John: In a segment we like to call Question Time with Megana. Megana, please join us and talk through some questions that our listeners have sent through.

Craig: Hey Megana.

Megana Rao: Hi guys, how are you?

John: Hey Megana.

Craig: Good.

Scott: Hello Megana.

John: I feel in the mood for some crafty questions since this has become a very crafty episode. So what do you have for us this week?

Megana: OK, awesome. So, Sophie in London asks, “I’m currently writing a TV series based on historical events in 1920s Argentina. I’ve never written any true story scripts before and I’m struggling with the sheer amount of research each thread pulls me into. How do you balance staying true to the history and communicating essential facts while crafting the heart of the story and character’s development? How do you know when you’ve researched enough and when it’s time to start writing pages?”

John: Ah, a crucial thing. So, people can fall into the abyss of research forever and actually never write their things. Scott Frank, so you are setting the story, the ‘50s and ‘60s?

Scott: Mm-hmm.

John: And so how much research did you do? How much did you not do? What was the process? When did you stop researching and just do stuff?

Scott: I didn’t do much of any research on this one because I had the novel and I had Gary Kasparov and Bruce Pandolfini to talk to. So I did very little research in, you know, traditional. I have a researcher that I work with. I did a ton of research on say Godless. But research is a trap. It’s a wonderful thing because it gives you, again, telling detail. It gives you these things that you can find story. But if you’re just trying to write to the facts then you’re going to get lost. And the story should come first.

What is the good story? What is the story you want to tell? And you first need to figure out what is the yarn you’re going to spin. And, again, that’s a feeling. It’s not a crafty thing, it’s a feeling. What story do I want to tell here? What characters do I want to write about? And then as you get into that then you start to look to research to answer your questions. As opposed to look to research to sort of find your story. I mean, sometimes you do that. I mean, I did that certainly on Godless. But I didn’t know what I was going to write about. I just knew the genre.

You’re writing about something that’s true, so you have a lot of stuff there already. You need to sort of figure out, I would say, what the story is. And then use research to make sure that you’re being honest and true, but figure out again what yarn are you spinning. I’m going to just keep saying that.

Craig: Yeah. I would say to Sophie what got you interested in this thing in the first place. If it feels like you’ve given yourself a book report then, yeah, you’re going to get lost because what do you write about. How do you stress one aspect of this historical event in this decade in Argentina over another? What characters should you be focusing on? So you’re asking how do you stay true to history and communicate essential facts while crafting the heart of the story and character’s development. Why did you want to do this?

So what were the things that grabbed you? And why did they grab you? And how did they immediately in your mind connect to human beings and a story about human beings that would be relevant to anyone, whether they lived in 1920s Argentina or not? And that should help focus you.

You will probably swing back and forth at times between trying to figure out do I make the history, put these characters in a situation that reveals who they are? Do I make the characters and their relationship guide me towards which aspect of the history I should be focusing on in this moment? That’s a little bit of a push and pull balancing act. But keep coming back to what fascinated you. That will be your lodestone.

John: Yeah. I trip on the essential facts because facts – you’re not a journalist here. And so obviously you want to be truthful, but really emotionally truthful should be your goal. What are the essential themes, the essential questions, dramatic questions you want to explore here? And the true life details, the history, can help get you there, but you’re not trying to tell a history lesson. Or if you are trying to tell a history lesson maybe the screenplay is not the right way to do it.

Craig: All right. Megana, lay another one on us.

Megana: Cool. So Truthy asks, “I’m adapting a first person short story about a young woman struggling with depression. More than external events the story deals with the protagonist’s internal journey with her mental illness. I feel like having first person voice over narration in the screenplay would really help, but I’m concerned that voice over can seem like a writing crutch and that somebody detest the concept entirely. What are your opinions on using voice over narration and what do you think are the common mistakes people make with it?”

Craig: Scott, what do you feel about that?

Scott: I feel like the only thing worse than using voice over in this case is to use depressed voice over in this case.

Craig: I’m so bummed out.

Scott: Don’t yeah. Voice over can be great. It can be really fun. You know, if it’s used as kind of ironic or if it’s used – if it feels like it’s a character, you know. If it feels like there’s something – there’s a good reason for it. Goodfellas had great voice over. But then Casino was wall-to-wall voice over. It felt like they were just fixing something. But I love the voice over in Goodfellas beginning with “I always wanted to be a gangster.” It’s awesome.

And so you have to think about it. And frequently it’s a solve, but usually it works better if it kind of grows organically out of your concept. You haven’t said anything about, I don’t know what the story is that you’re telling. I just know that you have a depressed character. And I would just say that there are three things that get old fast. And I just had to wrestle with it. They get old fast on screen or in anything. Anger. Drinking, getting drunk. Drunkenness. And I would say depression/grief. So, those things.

It’s really hard to have a character wrestling with that unless they’re in some situation that’s really interesting. And, you know, what is – I don’t know where you’ve located this person and so I don’t know. It’s hard to answer the question. But voice over could work, but I don’t know how you’re going to use it. If you’re just going to use it to say how she feels and what she’s going through I think you can solve that better by putting her in situations that show us that. And giving her conversations that help us with that. Behavior that helps us with that. But be careful.

Craig: Yeah, Truthy, I think that the thing that’s maybe most concerning to me is that you’re saying your story deals with a protagonist’s internal journey with her mental illness. I don’t actually know what an internal journey with mental illness is. I’ve had my own mental illness. I know what the process of dealing with it is. I know how it makes me feel. I know how the nature of the discussions I’ve had with a therapist or with friends. And I know how it manifests itself in my relationships with other people. But there is no internal journey per se.

There’s a kind of story that externalizes an internal journey. You know, when Robin Williams goes to heaven/hell to find his dead wife, or one of those things. You know?

A great version of that is The Fisher King that Richard LaGravenese wrote which clearly shows an internal journey with mental illness by externalizing it completely in a kind of fantastical element. But if you’re dealing with a very kind of down to earth wide-eyed, clear-eyed view of mental illness it needs to be, I think, experienced through someone’s relationships and behavior. The first person voice over narration when you say it will really help, help what? Help us understand what she’s thinking? That is not the goal.

The goal is to have us feel for her. And a lot of times clear explanations of how someone is feeling takes away our feeling for them. It becomes more of an essay that we’re reading as opposed to something that we’re feeling heart-wrenched over because we’re seeing somebody struggle. Or somebody – I mean, what’s sadder? Having somebody tell us that they’re terrified but have to keep a smile on? Or watching somebody that we know is terrified trying to keep a smile on? See what I mean?

So, I think you might want to just consider that internal journey part first and interrogate whether or not that is a necessary part of how this story should be told.

John: The other thing I would stress is that if you do a first person narration you’re creating a very different relationship between the audience and that character. We get insight into that character’s thinking and thoughts. And that can be great and powerful. You know, Clueless is a great example of first person narration. And if we didn’t understand what was going on inside her head the movie would not work nearly as well as it does. So it bonds us very closely to that.

But it also can interfere with sort of the natural unfolding of story, particularly based on when is this narration happening. Is it happening simultaneously to what the character is experiencing on screen, or is it something that happened before and you’re basically retelling the story? You’re pitching a yarn, in the Scott Frank sense.

Many of the mafia movies are sort of like this is what happened, this is what happened next, and they’re going back and telling you how a thing happened.

So there’s not one right or wrong answer here. I think we’ve just experienced so many times in movies where something wasn’t working right and they tried to throw a voice over on it and it just made it worse. Make sure that you’re doing it, you’re being very deliberate about it and you’re really thinking how is this going to help the audience really identify with this character’s story rather than just being an easier way to have some things being said.

Scott: And that points out something really, really important, too. Which has two parts to it. The first part is you need to know what story you’re telling. That’s really what it is. Who is this – right now you’ve described almost a type. It’s almost that reductive. It’s a depressed person. So, without knowing where you’ve put that person and what story and what else is about this person it’s very hard to know how to kind of address your question.

But more importantly what John was talking about now about voice over is a lot of times, you know, the studio will ask someone to come fix something. The ending doesn’t work, but we think it will work with voice over. If you add voice over people will understand. And the problem is it isn’t about understanding. And they’ve cut out all the things, by the way, at the beginning that got you invested because it was “slow.” So, the problem is you need to feel something at the end. We can understand, oh, they got together, I’m supposed to be happy. But then there is really feeling happy when they get together. Or feeling sad. It’s a very different thing between understanding what’s supposed to be happening and knowing that, yeah, that’s right but really feeling it.

Your job is to make us really feel it. You know, you have to really feel – when you get to the end it can’t be this perfunctory exercise in paying off the beginning because of screenwriting rules. It has to be something that feels really, to use the overused word, earned. And that’s really what you have to feel.

And so voice over or description or explaining things, that’s sort of looking in the wrong place for a solution. You need to look at the character and the story that grows out of that character. All answers are there. Everything is there.

John: Now Megana while we have you here, one of the things – it’s been a full year since PayUpHollywood started and all that stuff. It seems like another lifetime ago. Are you getting any emails in from assistants, from people who are dealing with that? What’s the status of that right now? Is there any sort of news on that level?

Megana: Yeah actually. We’re just about to launch our next survey. We pushed it back because of the election, so I think it’s like November 16. And I’ll include all of that stuff in the show notes for assistants. I think in particular the survey is interested in how people have been affected by the different Covid shutdowns. But take a look for that survey because things seem to only be getting better.

John: Great. So we’ll have a link to that in the show notes. And if people want to send in questions where should they send them?

Megana: To ask@johnaugust.com would be fantastic.

John: And we always love when people attach a voice memo because that way we can hear your voice and know who we’re actually talking to. Megana, thanks so much.

Craig: Thanks Megana.

Megana: Thank you guys.

Scott: Thank you, Megana.

John: All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a book I’m reading right now called Brilliant: The Evolution of Artificial Light by Jane Brox. It is just a book about how light came to be. How humans got to have light. And to be able to push back the darkness.

Craig: God. I mean, isn’t it just god?

John: God did it all. And so here’s a thing that I feel like all the movies I’ve seen and TV shows I’ve seen that were set before like 1900 have been cheating. Because most people just did not have the ability to have real light inside their houses to do things. But we needed to film period things and so we just sort of cheat the light and make it seem like these things were lit when they really weren’t.

And our ability to do things at night is actually very, very recent in human times. I mean, moving beyond campfires, which you can’t do very much by, to electric light we went through this transition where we had candles, and candles were just terrible, and then lanterns were a little bit better, and finally get to electric light. But I’ve just really enjoyed her laying out the history of this stuff and how much human civilization has changed because we’ve been able to control light.

So, Brilliant: The Evolution of Artificial Light by Jane Brox.

Craig: Fantastic. Scott, anything on your One Cool Thing list?

Scott: I have a very analog One Cool Thing. Because I’m obsessed with the fact that writing has become so much about screens and looking at screens. Even getting notes on things. It’s just all on screen. And so I have taken to carrying this little teeny tiny Moleskin notebook that has changed my life. It’s tiny. It’s like the size of your Air Pods case, maybe a little bigger.

And what would be great, or what is great, is when you’re out there and I’ll be reading something or I’ll be listening to a podcast and I’ll hear a word that I think is a great word. And I just put that one thought on that page because they’re not huge pages. I don’t feel required, or feel pressured to fill it up with everything. But I think about little thoughts and sentences that I hear and that I want to plug into whatever it is I’m working on or thinking about. And it’s great. You just carry a little pencil stub or they make these great little tiny pens now. And I feel like if we did that more we would kind of find these little things out there in the world that would be better than finding them on screen.

Because I can’t tell you how often I hear something I think, wow, that’s a good use of that word. That’s amazing. I want to remember that. Or, wow, that was a really interesting image I just saw. I want to remember that. And I love notebooks. I have a notebook for every project. But this is something different. You just take it with you and knowing that it’s in your pocket makes you feel strong. [laughs]

Mind blown, right everybody? Yeah.

John: I like it.

Craig: It doesn’t take much to make Scott feel strong. A small amount of paper.

Scott: A little notebook in my pocket. It’s my little secret.

Craig: No one touch my notebook!

Scott: Your little secret.

Craig: Um, Scott can’t find his little notebook and so we can’t get started today. If someone could find his notebook. [laughs]

Scott: [laughs] It’s with his medicine. He left it with his medicine.

Craig: Exactly. Scott, you put your notebook and your wallet in the freezer again. Sweetheart.

Scott: By the way, you can get it on Amazon. The teeniest, tiniest Moleskin. You can get them on Amazon. They sell you like a six-pack or something.

Craig: Yes, of course. We’ve got to keep Amazon’s profit margins up, so here’s another thing you can get on Amazon. We’re heading into Thanksgiving. I don’t think either of you guys are big chefs, but–

John: I cook. But what you’ve posted here I’m fascinated by because it looks so much like a ShamWow kind of commercial.

Craig: No, no, it’s quite beautiful. And it’s cheap which is nice. I always like a nice, cheap thing. And it actually solves a problem. So when you approach Thanksgiving you are going to be making a lot of things with butter. That’s why Thanksgiving tastes so good. And there is a slight annoyance with butter. When you’ve got your sticks of butter you need to maybe grease a pan or something like that. You know how butter is wrapped, like the stick of butter is wrapped in such a way that you can’t unwrap it properly? I don’t know what they do. It’s like an origami thing around it. And then when you need to cut away a tablespoon or whatever you’re never quite cutting evenly. Plus the butter is always super hard.

This is a very simple gadget. It’s called The Butter Twist. You stick your stick of butter in this little plastic thing. Costs $15.49, or I guess the same equivalent as 4,000 of Scott’s little notebooks. Those cost a hay penny a piece. And you put it in there and it obviously holds the butter so if you need to grease a pan or something like that, but also if you need two teaspoons you just set the little dial on a thing and you twist it and it cuts that amount perfectly and drops it out onto your plate which is really nice. Because as you’re cooking like a big meal, like Thanksgiving, you don’t want to just keep screwing up knives and things to cut butter. That’s just a waste of dishwasher time. So, cute little thing. Works real well. $15.49.

The Butter Twist. Spread, cut, measure, dispense, and store your butter.

John: So unfortunately this only takes standard size sticks of butter. We use this weird Irish butter that’s really, really good, but it’s too wide to fit in that thing. So then we’d have to cut it and it would be a lot to do.

Craig: Yeah. This is really for…

John: Americans.

Craig: Well, and also for cooking. I mean, I wouldn’t waste the good Irish butter on cooking. Spread that on your toast. But for cooking just throw the crap in there. Your old Land-O-Lakes.

Scott: Craig, does this device fit in your pocket?

Craig: It does fit in your pocket. Yup. It does not come with a little pencil.

Scott: Just wondering. Just wondering if it fits in your pocket.

Craig: If you had a certain kind of small notebook you probably could write a word or two with butter on it.

Scott: There are marks on the butter where you can just slice right through.

Craig: Again, you must not have been listening to me. I mean—

Scott: About the dishwasher. Blah-blah-blah. Don’t you have to throw this in the dishwasher, too?

John: In fact one photo shows it going into a dishwasher.

Craig: Correct. So instead of the multiple things you just have the one thing. You can store your butter in it and, listen, I’m not talking to you. You don’t cook anything. You sit there at Thanksgiving. You’re asleep before Thanksgiving. Then they wake you up. They send you in there to eat. And then you go back to sleep. Sometimes I think–

Scott: They don’t even wake me up.

Craig: Exactly.

Scott: They don’t even want me in there. They’re glad I’m asleep.

Craig: They mush some potatoes around your slightly open mouth. I’m actually cooking.

Scott: They dip my hand in hot water, warm water, and leave me alone.

Craig: So that you’ll just get to the inevitable pants-peeing quicker.

Scott: Yeah. Dad’s in his chair.

Craig: We know exactly how it goes in your house. I’ve been there. I’ve seen this. [laughs]

Scott: [laughs] Yeah.

John: And that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by William Phillipson. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Scott Frank, are you on Twitter? I don’t think you are.

Scott: I’m on no social media.

Craig: He’s smart.

John: That is smart.

Scott: But I do have a little notebook in my pocket.

John: That’s right.

Craig: He can tweet with his little…he says to himself, “Oh, people would love that.”

John: Yes.

Craig: You’re going to like my own thing.

John: We have t-shirts. They’re delightful. They’re at Cotton Bureau. They make a good gift if you’re looking for a Christmas gift for somebody. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes including the one where Scott Frank talks about Godless at the Austin Film Festival. We also have bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on Thanksgiving. But, I want to express my gratitude and thanks to Scott Frank for joining us here on this podcast. Great discussion.

Craig: Thank you, Scott. Miss you.

Scott: Thank you guys. It was fun.

Craig: I miss you and I regret to say that once again you’ve done brilliant work. Pisses me off.

Scott: That’s my goal.

Craig: I know.

[Bonus segment]

John: All right. So my thought behind this is that Thanksgiving is coming up. It’s going to be a weird Thanksgiving because of the pandemic. And this has just been a weird kind of generally terrible year. I think this will go down, for the rest of our lives, we’ll know, oh 2020, that was the year that was just awful.

But there were actually some good things that happened this year so I wanted to take a moment to think about the happy things that happened this year and I have a couple things on my little short list. One is that I had a movie that went from like, oh here’s an idea, to oh we’re in production and it all happened in 2020 which was just a delight. It was a fantasy project that I always wanted to do, that I got a chance to do, and weirdly the pandemic was kind of good for it. Because it was animation and nothing else could get made everybody could just focus on, OK, we can do an animated movie. And that was a good thing that happened in this bad year.

Do either of you have some things you’re grateful for in 2020?

Craig: You’re talking to the wrong Jews. A lot of complaining over here.

John: Scott Frank, you had an acclaimed series that you were able to finish post-production on.

Craig: But he’ll never do that well again. [laughs]

Scott: No. I never will. I’m very grateful that I peaked in 2020. I’m very grateful that the show got the response that it did which is surprising and yet lovely at the same time. I am grateful that we finished shooting last year. And am grateful that the technology caught up so that I could do all of post from my house in Connecticut. So that was – I’m very lucky that way. I know a lot of people who had to abandon production in the middle and then go back to it and I feel very fortunate that I didn’t have to.

I also feel lucky that the whole Covid thing forced everyone to kind of, in terms of family at least, to be a little more connected. And it got me to settle down a little bit that way. And it was nice to just be kind of in the quiet and enjoying – I wouldn’t say enjoying because there’s a lot of anxiety, but just kind of being with my family. I really like that. Who would have thought? They didn’t like it, but I did.

Craig: No. They like being with me. I know that.

Scott: They do. They love you. Especially Jennifer.

Craig: And I love them.

Scott: Yeah, they know.

Craig: They know. We all know. Everyone knows. That’s mostly what I’m thankful is the time I get to spend with Scott’s family.

Scott: Yes. [laughs]

John: I will say as the parent of a teenager, you know, in general I would not see her kind of at all, but for this last year we’ve had every meal together. We’ve been with each other this whole time. And it’s been actually really good. So I am also grateful for the sort of chance to hang out with her for this last year when she normally would have been off with friends and I would have been doing meetings and I would have been doing things in person. And I just wasn’t doing those things so we were all just together all this time. And I’m really grateful that it well.

Scott: It’s nice. And my kids are out of the house, but still they would, when we were in the city we would see them, or they would come up here. Because two of them live in New York. And my son came out from California and stayed here and wrote music. And every weekend we would come up and see him and we never would have seen him so much.

And even with Jennifer, you know, we’re married 32 years. Just to kind of cook at home and be at home and just, you know, hang out. There’s something that felt like a reset. It’s a little confusing given that not everybody has that experience.

John: Craig, there’s nothing we’re going to get out of you?

Craig: No, no, that’s not true. I am thankful about things. This is a pretty rough year just for the world and it is a weird thing to think about what’s gone well, because a lot of people have been suffering. But here’s a couple things that went well in 2020 for me, or at least me and the family.

My wife had breast cancer. And the treatment went really well. There’s a little surgery in there that was not too drastic and kind of just went well. And then the radiation after went really well. She didn’t need chemo, which I was really happy about. Because I think both of us were just sort of dreading that. Because, OK, Scott you’ve been married for 32 years. I’ve been married for 24 years. And I always say like any change after that amount of time is a positive. What, lose your hair? You’re going to be bald? Hot. That’s so great. I’m down. Let’s do this.

Any change is exciting. But she didn’t have to lose her hair, so I was a little bummed about that. But she didn’t have to get sick or anything like that from chemo which was really nice. And it looks like it’s all clear.

You know, you feel like you dodge a huge bullet with something like that. My son has Crohn’s disease and he was in the hospital again last week, because he had had some emergency surgery a couple years ago. And then he had a following surgery a year later because when you have stomach surgery there can be these adhesions in your colon that will sometimes just block everything and then they have to do another operation. Which is why the only good thing about him getting an abdominal obstruction and having a second emergency abdominal surgery was that it got me out of running for Vice President of the Writers Guild. So that was great.

I was in the hospital with him while that was going on. But it happened again last week. But this time happily they just – they kind of put him in the hospital and put him on fluids and just waited. And he did not need surgery. And so that was – it was sort of like dodging these bullets. When there are bullets flying all around I guess at some point you’re like, OK, people are dropping like flies so mostly I’m just looking at where the bullets don’t connect and saying, there. That’s a very good thing.

So I’m really happy about that.

Here’s another strange, like you try and find these little upsides to Covid which has killed nearly or more than a quarter of a million Americans and is on its way to ultimately being the deadliest thing America has faced since WWII. In fact, I think it will overcome WWII and be the worst deadliest thing we faced since the Civil War I guess.

My dad died and we couldn’t have a funeral or a memorial thing because of Covid and everything, so we have to wait. But it occurred to me that when we finally do have it, let’s say after vaccines and things it will be summer or something, I don’t know, that we will have a memorial service maybe eight months or a year after he died. And in doing so I think can have the experience that we’re supposed to have when people die. Like I think this should be a thing anyway. Somebody dies, you should wait a year and then have the memorial service. Because then it’s fun and it’s positive and you can actually do the whole thing of like remember. All the things they tell you you’re supposed to do you can do them. Because you’ve had time.

Why do we make ourselves do this when we’re in the lowest point and in the most wretched grievous state? Everybody should get time. And then have a memorial and it can be fun. It can be the kind of memorial the person who died would like to have been at. So, there’s a weird silver lining to that.

So those are the things for which I’m thankful this year. And I would argue that all of those things are more important and better than the things that you guys are thankful for.

Scott: Without question. Just one big ray of sunshine. Thank you, Craig.

John: Indeed.

Craig: And I’m also thankful for Jennifer, Scott’s wife.

Scott: Of course you are. And she for you.

Craig: I know. I know. I know. I know.

John: All right. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Craig.

Craig: Thanks guys.

Scott: Thank you.

 

Links:

  • If you’re an assistant or coordinator interested in a PayUpHollywood survey please email ask@johnaugust.com
  • Queen’s Gambit
  • Queen’s Gambit Script Pages Opening and Basement Chess Scene
  • Queen’s Gambit Palette Inspiration
  • Scott Frank
  • Moleskine Notebooks
  • Brilliant: The Evolution of Artificial Light by Jane Brox
  • Kitchen Butter Twist
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by William Phillipson (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 (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.