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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 674: The One vvith Robert Eggers, Transcript

February 5, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. A standard warning for people who are in the car with their kids, there’s some swearing in this episode.

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

Today on the show, how do you honor a genre while still pushing at its boundaries? Our guest today is Robert Eggers, a writer and director whose movies include The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Northman, and most recently, Nosferatu. Welcome Robert.

Robert Eggers: Thanks for having me.

John: Reading through those credits, this is going to be your first movie that doesn’t have a ‘the’ in front of it, at least that I’ve noticed. There’s no ‘the’ in Nosferatu. You’re breaking new ground here. You’ve left off the definite article.

Robert: Yes. It was very intimidating. Maybe The Vampyre would have been more appropriate.

John: I want to talk through Nosferatu, I want to talk through the genre, your other films, but I also want to get into your POV as a writer versus a POV as a director and where you’re at as you’re putting scenes together. Also, I want to try to answer a couple of listener questions we have about historical detail, feeling stupid, and whether writers make bad romantic partners because you’ve just made a gothic romance. We want to talk about that.

In our bonus topic for premium members, let’s talk about cycling because that is the thing that you do in your off time that I don’t think I’ve had anyone on the podcast talk about before. I want to talk about cycling, how you got into it, and what role it fills in your life. Let’s dig right into it.

Robert, give us some backstory on how you came to be a writer and director. You grew up in New England. Where did you start with storytelling and with movies?

Robert: Avid movie watcher like a good American kid growing up in the ‘80s and ‘90s and watched ungodly amounts of television, which was also perfectly acceptable back then. I did theater growing up, acting in theater and my mom had a kid’s theater company. We were also involved in building the sets and doing the costumes. There were parents who were more skilled in these things, but everyone was involved. My dad was also a Shakespeare professor. Even though I lived in rural New Hampshire, I had the opportunity to see things that a lot of people didn’t get to see and occasionally going to Boston to see a play or go to the ballet or the art museum or whatever.

Of course, cinematically, I was still into more mainstream things to some degree. Then talking about Nosferatu, that was a film that I saw when I was young around nine, and it made a very large impression on me. Max Schreck’s performance, of course, but also the atmosphere of the film because it’s not the beautiful restored versions that you can even watch on YouTube that are color tinted and have– You can watch it with the original German inner titles with subtitles if you want, but this was very degraded and you couldn’t see Max Schreck’s bald cap, you couldn’t see the grease paint on his eyebrows. It felt like a vampire. It felt real. The atmosphere of that and the reality of that was really inspiring as a kid.

Also, which I’m sure we’ll talk about later, the fact that Murnau, his collaborators, and the screenwriter, Henrik Galeen, turned Stoker’s novel into a simple fairy tale compared to, the Bela Lugosi version that I was familiar with that was based the Balderston Dean stage play, which is pretty stodgy and so as the Tod Browning movie, if we’re honest, after Transylvania, this was crazy for me.

I grew up doing tons of theater. When I was 17, I had the opportunity to do a senior-directed play. Me and my friend, Ashley Kelly Tata, who’s now a theater and opera director, we co-directed Nosferatu on stage. I had been doing also some theater with a theater called the Edwin Booth. The artistic director was a gentleman named Edward Langlois, who is the only person who is doing interesting stuff. He wasn’t doing My Fair Lady, he was doing The Duchess of Malfi.

I invited him to see it, but he saw that play and asked if we would want to do a more professional version of it at his theater, and that put me on this trajectory. It cemented the fact that I wanted to be a director, that I wanted to tell the stories that I was interested in, and it also made Nosferatu something that would always be part of my identity as someone who’s trying to make creative work for better or for worse.

John: I want to go back to that high school Nosferatu. Can you describe what that was? Was it one act, was it two acts? What was the texture we’re working off of? What was that play you did?

Robert: It was mostly based on the Murnau film. Of course, the version that I had was, as far as I understand, an English translation of French intertitles. That would have been the version that Henri Langlois screened in Paris at his theater. The Ellen/Mina character was called Nina, but most everyone else had their Dracula names. It was weird, but we didn’t know it was weird at the time. We drew on that and also some things from the novel.

The Coppola film had also been something that I watched a ton, and there was definitely some inspiration from that. It was a silent film on stage. We were wearing black and white makeup and costumes and black and white sets and wigs and acting in a very stylized expressionist way. There were super titles above the proscenium that would say the text and there was music playing the whole time.

John: What’s the success? You were doing this as a high school student. Did you feel like, “Oh, this was the accomplishment I set out to make.”? What did you learn while you were doing it?

Robert: It definitely felt like we had hit on something pretty cool. In this very humble environment, it was a successful production standing room only, blah, blah, blah. Good reviews from the local newspaper. It was a very satisfying, formative experience for sure. I have very fond memories of all of us doing each other’s makeup and gluing sideburns and mustaches on people and all that.

John: You’ve done stuff on the stage and you’ve grew up with stage because of your parents and so you had a chance to see that thing, and then you were adapting a cinematic work for the stage and trying to pull the ideas of cinema to the stage, the title cards and all this stuff. When did you start becoming interested in how do we do an actual cinematic language? When did you start thinking about, I want to pick up a camera and shoot a film and learn editing? What was that transition?

Robert: Eventually, I’m directing off off off off Broadway Theater in New York with my friends. As I felt at the time, I don’t know how I would feel about it if I watched it now, but at the time I felt we did a pretty good job of Othello, also well-reviewed, but nobody saw it. Then we did street theater because we felt like people have to fucking see it if we do street theater. That was cool, but it was also– We were working out of a dirt floor basement and it was extremely humble.

I thought, “Clearly cinema’s the way to go.” I half seriously, just trying things, took some Shakespeare plays that I knew well and adapted them to screenplays as an exercise. Then eventually, I made a short film of Hansel and Gretel that somehow is on YouTube. I don’t know how the hell it got on there, but it’s absolutely terrible. It got into one film festival and on the bus ride home from the Boston Underground Film Festival, I thought, “I really have to make something that is not terrible.”

Then I started working on this short that became an adaptation of the Tell-Tale Heart and Jarin Blaschke, my cinematographer, and Louise Ford, my editor for the rest of my career thus far, were on that. That was a very formative experience. Also, basically, I was making my living doing set and costume design for the stage at this time because I had always done it myself in New York. I enjoyed it and had a knack for it. That was how I was making my living.

This also, aside from being a calling card as a director, helped me break into doing art department, wardrobe and film and television, non-union commercials, and stuff like that. It also helped me make a living. Sometimes I’d have a great job. Sometimes I would be a set carpenter or I was sewing curtains. In between all these things, I was writing and wrote a bunch of screenplays that were all dark and fairy tale adjacent, but not in an identifiable genre and thus not commercial enough to finance. The Witch was me trying to be more commercial, but being true to myself.

John: Let’s go back to Tell-Tale Heart because we’ll put a link in the show notes to it. It’s great. It’s really good. It’s a very strong short, and I think we’re often talking about on the podcast is people are waiting for permission to do the thing that they want to do. It looks like with Tell-Tale Heart, you made the short film that you could with the resources you had, and the skills you had, and the group that you had assembled around you were able to make something that was what you wanted to make, as opposed to Hansel and Gretel. This was a true representation of what your aims were.

Watching it now, it’s like, “Oh, that feels like Robert Eggers.” That feels like all the calling cards of what you’re going to be doing down the road. It has that style. How many days is that? What did you have? What was your big basket of stuff you could put into this thing? There’s costumes, there’s sets, there’s a sense of production value that’s way beyond what you might expect from just a short film. Tell me about putting together the Tell-Tale Heart.

Robert: I’ve been saving up my money, and at that time, I was waiting tables and then asked friends and family if they would help chip in. It was also before the big financial crisis, so we were able to get donations from people. This was before Kickstarter and all that thing. We did lots of fundraising events to try to get some money. We had some money to work with, but we found an abandoned house, which, shockingly, in my hometown.

It was a very rural town, and someone in the more wealthy town of Portsmouth in the 19th century decided to build their wife an amazing house out in Lee, New Hampshire. Then, I don’t know, something happened. The family lost their money or whatever. It had been sitting there rotting. Only the kitchen had electricity, and the walls still were horsehair and plaster. It was just like a good old-fashioned haunted house.

Ed Langlois, the artistic director of the Edwin Booth, he came in to help with the costumes and the production design, and we were in there in the freezing fucking cold decorating this abandoned house. We drove up to Maine to get some fabric that was fire and water-damaged, that we could get a super-heavy discount, but get massive bolts of it. Because we wanted it to look like shit, it was perfect. We got to use that, and I rented some costume pieces from a costume rental house in New York that I’d been working with on stage stuff. Then we had a few things built and some top hats made by someone on Etsy.

John: You were driving all of these decisions yourself. You were producing this yourself, in addition to having written and directed it.

Robert: I had producers as well, Mike Neal and Maura Anderson. Of course, the big decisions of how this is going to work is coming from-

John: The hustle was you.

Robert: The big creative decisions were me. There was plenty of hustle for everyone. Ed actually– I sent him the script and asked if he wanted to work on it. He said it was very nicely written, but it was just fucking Masterpiece Theater, and he wasn’t really interested in it. He said there was nothing exciting about it as finely written as it was. At the time– I don’t know how we’re going to get to the rest of my career if we take this long about the Tell-Tale Heart, but it’s fine with me. Basically, I had wanted this dying painter who was in his 90s to play the old man, and then I realized that in this horrible location in February, he was probably going to die.

John: That’d be a lot to kill the man in the Tell-Tale Heart.

Robert: It would be stupid to have someone in a bunch of prosthetic makeup. It would be better, I thought to myself, on the Chinatown bus, if it was a fucking doll. Then I thought, “Maybe that’s actually really cool if it’s a puppet and there’s something death-like about it the whole time. It could be really interesting.” I shared that idea with Ed and then he said, “Now that’s cool. Now I want in to this.” Then, my friend, Chelsea Carter, who I worked at the same restaurant with, she was working at the Jim Henson Creature Shop in New York. I did the sculpt of the face, but then she built the puppet.

John: Great. What I hear in your story is that you’re running into obstacles and you’re just figuring out, “What resources do I have? Who do I know? What other thing could I do that makes this thing possible to do?” You weren’t taking no for an answer. You weren’t taking in the fact that this guy was going to die if you tried to do it. You’re like, “That is a challenge, but it’s also an opportunity to do something different and something weird and something special and unique to our movie.” It’s the stuff that’s specific to your approach that makes it exciting for people. It’s what gets people to sign on. We’re going to do something that’s different. It’s not just a plus-one version of an existing thing that we could’ve done anywhere else.

Robert: Not fucking Masterpiece Theater.

John: Exactly. I want to talk to you. This guy was complimenting your writing. When did you first read a screenplay? You’ve obviously grown up reading a lot of plays, but when did you first read a screenplay, like this is a plan for making a movie? Do you remember what the first script was you read for a movie?

Robert: That’s a great question. I really don’t know. Certainly, I read a lot of screenplays. I don’t read a lot now, but in my 20s and early 30s, I read a lot of screenplays.

John: Having read through Nosferatu, I think you actually like screenplays. There’s some writers I’ve talked to-

Robert: Yes, I do.

John: -who clearly the writing script is only just so that they can actually make the movie, but they actually don’t like the screenplay form itself. You actually seem to sit in there and enjoy it. It doesn’t seem like a burden to you. Is that fair?

Robert: Yes. Definitely, I like what a screenplay can offer.

John: Here’s your initial description of Thomas in Nosferatu. “She looks across the room. Thomas Hutter, mid-20s, is tying his cravat before a small mirror. He’s very invested in tying it well. His back is to her. He’s handsome, if not pretty. Kind, determined eyes. He seems unaware of the darkness in the world. Their middle-class bedroom is cute with brand-new aspirational furnishing. This is to help disguise his overall shabbiness.”

There’s a lot there in that paragraph. It’s meant for the reader. There’s things in there that will be helpful to everyone else in the other departments, but it’s there to give you a sense of what it’s going to feel like to be watching this movie. That’s great to see on the page. Your script is full of that.

Robert: I think that in my films, I’m trying to create, a tremendous amount of atmosphere. If you don’t feel that in the script, then it’s hard to believe that it’s going to get there on screen, Also, I think that I wrote that because that’s what seemed right to me, and it was telling a lot about the situation. I think sometimes, consciously, when I’m describing characters, especially secondary or tertiary characters, I want to give them a good description, also so the actors are like, “Okay, I can see who this might be, and I might be interested in playing this role,” instead of just leaving them high and dry.

John: Absolutely. Another thing I noticed looking through your scripts is that you uppercase characters’ names a lot. If a paragraph starts with a character’s name, it’s almost always uppercased. It’s not a shot list, but paragraph by paragraph, you can feel like, oh, this is a shot, this is a shot. You definitely can see what the camera’s going to be looking at based on your paragraphs, which is great and works really well for you.

My question, though, is, as you’re writing a scene, let’s say you’re writing this initial scene between where we’re meeting Thomas and Ellen in this room, are you, as the writer, sitting in the room with the characters, watching them go about their things, or are you sitting back and watching in the frame in the proscenium? Where do you, Robert Eggers, fit in that world?

Robert: It depends scene to scene and screenplay to screenplay. I think very often I’ll start out, usually, I want the beginning to be very clearly shot listed in my mind as I’m writing it, whether I describe it as shots or just in prose without describing what the shots are. I think that as I get deeper into the story and there’s problems that I need to solve, then it just becomes the worst fucking TV coverage to just tell the story. Then I have to work on making it classy later.

The most recent script that I wrote, however, 80%, this is a shot, this is a shot. I’m saying like, “It’s a shot, we cut to this.” I just wanted to write a script like that for whatever reason. You know what I mean?

John: Going back to your experience in theater, though, because of course theater doesn’t have shots, it doesn’t have cuts. In theater, you’re in a space with characters. As you’re writing a piece for theater, you might be thinking about the blocking and where people are, but you’re really about what is the reality within a scene because there’s people in a space and you’re just with those people in a space.

I’m talking about street theater. You don’t even control sometimes the environment, you don’t even control the POV on things. I’m just curious, with Nosferatu, when you’re in those moments, how often were you thinking about, this is what the camera’s seeing versus this is the reality of being in a space with those characters?

Robert: I would say it was mostly about being in the reality of the space with Nosferatu. Then there’s a final step of writing that is the shot listing and the storyboarding with Jiren, where oftentimes we’re actually like reorganizing the beats so that it will flow better cinematically. I will very often rewrite the scene to match how we’ve simplified it or found the essence of it.

John: That’s great. When is the shot-listing process most helpful for you? Is it way in pre-production? Is it closer to the day of shooting? What makes sense for you?

Robert: Now, anyway, we’re storyboarding the whole damn thing. We don’t really finish until a little bit into the shoot, but in a perfect world, it would all be done well in advance in prep. With Nosferatu, Jiren and I moved to Prague much earlier than anyone else. We’re in my kitchen, in my apartment, planning the shots, hoping to get– We got a head start, but we were still a couple of weeks into production, still storyboarding.

John: How much of Nosferatu was storyboarded? Obviously, there’s going to be big sequences where you’re going to have visual effects, you’re going to have to put stuff in the background of things where you would need to storyboard it. For dialogue scenes, were you drawing those out?

Robert: Some of the dialogue scenes were shot-listed instead of storyboarded. If we had it our way, we would have storyboarded every single thing. We did storyboard the vast majority of the film. We just simply ran out of time. For some of the dialogue scenes, we shot-listed instead.

John: Who gets the storyboards? I know the Coen brothers, for example, will share with the actors, “Here are the boards for what we’re going to shoot today, the scenes we’re shooting today.” What are the edges of who sees storyboards for you?

Robert: Everybody.

John: Talk to us about the journey for Nosferatu, the movie, because you had intended to make this earlier on in your career, and it sounds like other things came before it. Was this always the first movie you wanted to make? Where did this fall in the– If I were talking to Robert in his early 20s, would he said that this is his next movie? When did the idea of the Nosferatu movie happen?

Robert: It was after The Witch. Talked a little bit about it, then I started developing a medieval knight movie called The Knight.

John: See? Another ‘the’ movie.

Robert: Yes. Basically, I was just so naive about Hollywood, and we worked for almost a year on it, not really realizing that myself and the studio were on parallel courses making two different movies, which was nobody’s fault but my own naivete. When I realized that that’s what was going on, I said, “Look, let’s push pause on this, and why don’t we do Nosferatu? I’m telling you right now, it’s a more commercial version of The Witch. We know what that is. Let’s go for it.”

Ultimately, I’m really, really, really glad that it didn’t work because I’ve grown a lot as a person and a filmmaker. I’m much more fluid with my collaborators. We’re further extensions of each other, and it’s easier for us to get our collective vision out of our brains and onto the screen the way we see it. I don’t think it would have been accomplished at the level that it’s at, whether that’s good or bad, had it been made back then.

John: Did you write a Nosferatu script back then?

Robert: I did, and it hasn’t really changed much since then. There was a lot more exposition when I had left it, and so it was mainly getting rid of exposition and tweaking things back and forth for budget and historical accuracy, both in the minutiae of German stuff and in the folklore. Ultimately, that first good draft is the same film.

John: It sounds like you knew what you needed to do as a writer, but as a director, you don’t think you were ready to make the movie you were able to make now?

Robert: Completely, yes. It was interesting. In the process of writing it, I wrote a novella, which I’ve never done before or since, but because this was an adaptation of a piece that’s important to so many people, myself included, I needed to find a way to get ownership of the world and the characters, and writing this overly long novella, that was filled with things that I knew would never be in the movie, helped me tremendously.

John: Let’s talk about genre in the bigger sense, and the genre, whatever you want to put this into, whether it’s gothic horror or how you perceive the movie. Nosferatu is a story that existed before, but you’re making your own version of it. What was the balancing act between staying true to what had come before versus putting your own stamp on things?

Robert: Obviously, it’s a question of taste, and it is subjective. I tried to run it on a parallel course and have all of my choices be some kind of extension of things that came from the Murnau film. One of the first things I did is open up Lotte Eisner’s biography of Murnau and the Galeene screenplay in the back of that, read that, go through it, check out Murnau’s notes carefully, and really try to understand where that team was coming from creatively and understand that Albin Grau, the producer, was an occultist, practicing occultist. I don’t know that he actually believed in folk vampires, but he almost certainly believed in astral vampires as a reality.

John: What is an astral vampire? You have to tell us about that.

Robert: People who can, or potentially elemental spirits who can send their astral bodies psychically to drain people of energy and stuff like that.

John: Sort of what we see Orlok doing at the very start, the sense of this mystical figure that comes to Ellen.

Robert: Yes. You try to understand all that stuff, great. It was always striking to me that Ellen becomes the heroine by the end of the film. I thought, “This is taking the inspiration from the original and running with it. What if it’s her movie? What if we see it through her eyes? Perhaps there is the ability for the film to have more emotional and psychological depth this way.”

In the original film, she’s called a somnambulist, and sleepwalkers in the 19th century were believed to be able to see into another realm. That became entirely inspirational into, first of all, understanding the Murnau film a little better, but then also understanding who this character could be. As much as I love Max Schreck’s iconic makeup design, and so does planet Earth, what is that thing? It certainly isn’t actually a vampire, anyway, as folklore would have it. I wanted the vampire to be scary.

Obviously, with my interest, I turned back to folklore and the early Balkan and Slavic folklore. These folk vampires were ambulating corpses that looked more like a cinematic zombie. That seemed very exciting to me. Then the question is, what does a dead Transylvanian nobleman look like? Then I go from there. He still has Max Schreck’s fingernails. He still has a bit of Max Schreck’s profile and hunch to take a nod back to the original, and because he is in this putrid state, he is a bit of a monster the way Max Schreck’s vampire is a monster.

John: I think we’re used to modern vampires being romantic figures in the classically sexual sense. We’re used to the Byronic vampire who’s charming, who comes in, and this is a more old-school, just actually terrifying monstrosity of a character who’s coming in here. While there’s still a sexual element to him, he’s this ancient old guy. He’s not Robert Pattinson, he’s a timeless demonic force.

Robert: Yes. A big, angry erection with a mustache. [laughs]

John: Talk to us about the tropes of gothic romance and tell me if there’s other genres you feel this fits into. When I think of gothic romance, I think of that ruin and decay, which you definitely see in your movie. You see the darkness, the suffocating. I always think about suffocating collars, those Victorian collars that are choking people, that sense of doomed romance that there’s fate. It’s a sense of permeating evil that is specific and different from, a Cthulian or a Lovecraftian kind of darkness or horror. It’s something primal but also understandable by humans.

There’s something mortal and physical about it that just feels so specific. What were the things as you were writing and then as you were thinking about production design, that you needed to call in there to make sure that we were feeling this world of gothic horror?

Robert: The thing that struck me is that this is a demon lover story, and there’s plenty of that in Victorian fiction. Wuthering Heights was something that I turned to pretty quickly in the writing process to explore Ellen and Orlok’s relationship dynamics. Something that I had all my heads of department read was The Fall of the House of Usher, which I’m sure they’ve all read before multiple times. I don’t think there’s ever been anything better as far as the description of gothic atmosphere.

There are so many little things, but never turning off the fog machine is a big help, I’ll say that. Look, the production design is very clear about what it’s doing, and the desaturated color palette is very clear about what it’s doing, but something that was also just essential and was really the only thing that focus features was a little bit like, “Please God, no,” they were so supportive, but I insisted on only shooting when it was gloomy to keep that heavy atmosphere. Also, when you finally see the sun after two hours of not seeing it, it has more of an impact.

John: Can we talk about night? Night is one of those really challenging things to visualize on film. Basically, there’s no one perfect way to do it, and everyone has to make different choices. My first movie, Go, was almost entirely night exteriors, and it killed me. I realized as a writer, “Oh, night,” and then you’re actually out having to shoot night, like, “Oh my God, this is the worst thing possible.”

I think what you don’t really appreciate until you actually have to aim a camera at something in the night is like, wait, how are we seeing this thing? Our eyes are not the same as what the camera’s going to see. What were the choices you made for night in this versus Northman versus The Witch in terms of how we’re visualizing night and where the light is coming from? How much is it subjective to the characters? What are some of the choices you’re making and having conversations with your collaborators about night?

Robert: With all of the films, the lighting is a very sculpted version of what light is supposed to be actually doing. All of the light sources, if it’s candlelit, it’s coming from candles. If it’s lamplight, it’s coming from a lamp, if it’s moonlight coming from a window. You can better believe that there’s no movie lights, no Kino Flos no nothing, just lights coming from the window with the tremendous amount of bounces and frames and shit all over the place.

That’s the approach, and it can become– With The Northman, some of those really wide expanses at night were very challenging to shoot. Shooting the rather lovely lit crossroads in Nosferatu was a little simpler because Jiren just had a strip of light that he needed to get his helium balloons over.

But something odd that we did on The Northman and honed on this, but it seems to confuse a lot of audience members, so maybe it is not the best choice, is basically, we don’t photograph any of the color red. It’s virtually a black-and-white image that you’re seeing, which is how mammals’ eyes work at night.

We know the color of our sneakers and the color of a tree, so we imagine seeing it, even though it’s not there, so maybe because we’re imagining it there, maybe it should be there, but we decided to not have it. I think it is very beautiful, but sometimes– I don’t know how many times people come up to me after screenings and ask me, “What does it mean when it’s black and white?” I’m like, “It means that it’s moonlight.”

John: Really, I would challenge any listener, next time you’re outside at night, outside of the city, when you’re actually just out in the middle of the woods at night, recognize how you’re not seeing color, you actually are seeing basically black and white. You don’t think about it because it’s not top of your mind, but you really cannot tell colors apart. It’s just how our eyes work. I think we’ve been conditioned by so many other movies that are basically sneaking lights in places to give you a sense of, oh, this is what night looks like. That it’s not truly what night is.

There’s both the aesthetic concern, but it’s also the real practical concern. If you are a production that has a lot of night exterior shooting, that’s going to have a huge impact on your crew and your ability to get work done. It’s a challenge, and so making smart choices is important.

Robert: I’ve definitely also– The next thing that I’m likely shooting has so many nights, so whatever, but I find that shooting nights as I get older has become a lot harder.

John: Oh, yes. You have a kid now, and so you recognize, “Oh, sleep is good.” Sleep is an important aspect for folks. Again, every production is going to make its own choices, but if I were to make a TV show that had a lot of night shooting, I would, from the very start, think about what are the choices we’re going to make that are going to look best on a screen and keep us alive while we’re doing it because that just feels important.

Robert: As I’ve learned about how Jiren works, now, when I’m writing something, I’m talking early on, like, “Do we think, with the vibe of this, we’re going to want fast film or not?” Like, “Okay, oh, we want to use slow film.” I got to think about the light sources at night because I don’t want to have to have a whole bunch of fucking lights in this particular scene. What am I going to–“ You know what I mean? It’s nice to have those conversations as I’m writing now so that I can be not putting myself in a place I don’t want to be when I’m on set.

John: For the right genre of movie, I watch Survivor, the CBS TV series, and their nighttime stuff, now they just shoot with infrared cameras. It’s such a weird, cool look. It’s like, for the right production, that might be a look to take, but you’re going to have to make that make sense within your whole world of stuff.

We have a couple of listener questions that I want to get to, if we can. This first one here is from Lisa about detail. Drew, can you help us out?

Drew Marquardt: Lisa writes, “I’m in the midst of a historical fiction book where the author has taken pains to get the slang, dress, and other details right, but somehow it’s too obviously worked in. It calls attention to itself too much. It feels a bit like the author is showing off their work and not organic to the story. For screenwriters, how much is too much? When does one’s effort at getting things right become distracting, and any guidance?”

John: All right. A good question about historical accuracy and details and what you need to put there versus feeling like it’s been shoved in. Robert, your script has a lot of period details, and I never felt they were shoved in, but did you have any sense of, I need to put this in there or I need to back off?

Robert: I think that once you establish a location or the persona of a character or whatever and it’s very clear, unless there’s a major change or a major new addition, you don’t need to harp on it so much. As you get further into the script, you can also dial back, Again, if there’s been a big energetic scene, and then the movie takes a pause and then there’s a funeral where the pacing’s going to be slower, then you can add some details about the funeral shit because the pacing’s going to be slower.

Generally, as the thing develops, you don’t need to write it’s a wooden door with iron, blah, blah, blah because you fucking can expect that by now, I think that’s definitely a big part of it. I haven’t read what you’re reading and sometimes people just have bad taste, but I think that once you’ve established it, people now know.

John: One thing I hear you saying is that the speed on the page should match the expected speed of the actual story you’re watching on screen. I always describe like screenplays should make you feel like you’re sitting in the audience watching this movie and the really good screenplays I’ve read, I forget after a couple of years, “Wait, did I watch that movie or did it just read the script?” They can really evoke the experience of sitting in that theater.

These details can matter. Robert, you describe a character blowing the pounce off something and that’s just not the way we would say that in American English. Yet it feels completely appropriate to the period of time that you’re putting this in here that your characters aren’t speaking in German yet they feel like, okay, we’re in this historic time where– I believe that we’re in Germany as we’re doing this.

Robert: Also, the inclusion of that was because you needed a beat change anyway. You might have just wrote pause, which also could have worked, but because we needed a beat change, it was like a way to work in a period detail that also keeps the momentum of the scene going in the right way, hopefully.

John: That’s great. Let’s try Emil in Norway.

Drew: Emil writes, “I’m a film student in Trondheim, Norway, and started this fall. It’s been a lot of learning, which is great, but also overwhelming at times. My question is, if you’ve ever felt stupid during your career, what did you do? I felt stupid a lot this semester Not all the time, but those moments stick with me. So it feels worse than it probably is. I struggle to get my ideas out the way I imagined them, and I worry more about not seeming stupid than I’d like. I try to tell myself that knowing you don’t know the answer is supposed to make you smart, but honestly, that feels more like wishful thinking than fact. Any advice?”

Robert: I think once you have a lot more experience, it’s a lot easier to say like, “I don’t know. What do you think?” Than when you don’t have a lot of experience. I would just say, watch a million movies, read a million books, listen to all kinds of music, check out paintings, and just absorb stuff. I went to drama school and that is it. My wife has a PhD in clinical psychology, and I, definitely, when I was hanging out with her friends, felt like a fucking idiot. I was like, “I need to read some more books.”

Certainly, in the process of making movies, you do make mistakes and you do not know everything, but I think you just have to go for it and put one foot in front of the other, and then you learn more. I think, though, that one of the cool things about being a director, it’s also sometimes frustrating and does make you feel dumb, is that you are almost always, if you’re not Ridley Scott, the least experienced person on set. Because everyone’s making many movies a year, and if you’re lucky, you’re making one every two or three years, and that’s if you’re lucky. You literally have to listen to everyone around you who knows more than you do, but also know when is it the time to reinvent the wheel.

Now, it’s interesting to me sometimes when I talk to screenwriters who aren’t showrunners and aren’t on set very much or even sometimes people in post-production who have incredibly illustrious careers but don’t know how movies are really made. Also, maybe it doesn’t matter if screenwriting’s your thing.

John: Going back to your story on Hansel and Gretel, you watched this film at the film festival, and you could have said, “Oh, I’m an idiot, I should stop this. This wasn’t very good,” and instead you said, “No, no, no, I want to make something much better than that.”

Robert: And look, I knew the movie didn’t work when we wrapped the shoot. I said, “Cut,” and I was like, “We don’t have it. We’re going to edit it, and it’s not actually going to really work, but I have to keep going because I have to learn.”

John: What Emil’s describing is imposter syndrome. He feels like he’s not up to the level of everybody else in his program, maybe. Remember, he only has introspection to himself, so he knows that he feels stupid, but he doesn’t know that everyone else may feel stupid too, or they may be just as stupid, but they’re just not projecting it. So listen, give yourself some grace. Know that you don’t know everything.

It’s also exciting to be a newcomer at something. I love going to do new things that I’m not good at because it just also reminds me of what it feels like to be young and be trying things. If I’m doing a Broadway show for the first time, or I’m doing a different animation for the first time, I love being the guy who doesn’t know how this stuff works, because then I can find out. There’s the opportunity to try new stuff. Emil, you’re great. Just keep working. Let’s try one more question here from A.D.S.

Drew: A.D.S. writes, “Do writers make bad long-term romantic partners? We spend a lot of time alone. We like sitting and watching movies and TV a lot. We’re largely unsuited for gainful employment. Even when we’re not working, we’re still working, interacting with friends and family, but always turning over a stubborn plot point in our heads, always listening for a line or idea we can steal. What types of personalities make good partners for writers? How important is it, reading and liking your work, your favorite genre, jokes, violence, comic books? Do opposites attract? Should you pursue love outside the business? If so, whatever are you going to talk about?”

Robert: [laughs] John? I don’t know why this is– Sjón, who co-wrote The Northman with me in a lot of other scripts that haven’t been made yet, he and his wife, Elsa, have a lovely relationship, and she’s an opera singer. They have things they have in common, they have things that they don’t, and it’s cool. My wife’s a clinical psychologist, same thing. She reads really intense, heavy literature, which I enjoy talking with her about and haven’t read, but it’s inspiring to me.

Then she watches shitty reality TV, which I can’t stand. She’s happy to come and go to watch a bunch of Bergman movies but doesn’t want to sit through a bunch of Hammer Horror movies, and that’s fine.

John: My husband is a super smart, very organized MBA. We have lots of areas that intersect, but we’re not the same person, and we have very different interests and things. I think that can be good, and whether you’re with a person who’s another writer, I have friends who both parts of the couple are writers, and it works great, and another couple of friends who split apart because they did overlap too much.

There’s no one perfect answer. I would say just your choice of profession and what you like to do for a living, it’s important, but it’s not the most important thing in a romantic partner. It’s like, does that person give you energy, give you joy, make you feel like more of yourself? Then that’s the right romantic partner for you. If not, then they’re probably not the right romantic partner and it doesn’t have very much to do with their profession.

Robert: You’re good at answering these questions in a holistic way. I’m very impressed. Anyway– [laughs]

John: Thank you. We’ve been doing this for a while, so it’s always nice to see things. The reason why I tend to focus on early parts of careers is that most of our listeners are in the early parts of their careers, and so that’s something they can relate to more because you can talk about, how do you deal with a studio marketing team for this stuff? It’s like, “Oh, those are problems that people will get to later on down the road.”

Robert: I had the absolute pleasure of being able to call Alfonso Cuaron every once in a while. Pleasure and privilege. I remember I was asking him about some lighting question on The Witch, and he was like, “What you need is you need this pyramid of LEDs that you program and all this shit,” and I was just like, “We’ve got $3.5 million. I don’t know what the fuck is–”

John: Absolutely. This isn’t Gravity here. That’s great.

This is the time of the program where we do our one cool things. My one cool thing is a video I watched this last week. It’s by Max Miller, he’s a guy who does historical foodstuff. He finds old historical recipes and he recreates them, things that would actually be very appropriate for some of your historical movies, like Nosferatu and stuff, what would they actually have been eating? In this case, he made school cafeteria pizza from the ’80s and ’90s. Robert, you probably remember this, remember this steam tray pizza?

Robert: Oh yes. I’m sure it’s illegal now.

John: He found the actual USDA recipe for it, basically how you’re supposed to make it. This liquid crust you use, which seems impossible, but it is a very convincing recreation of the original sheet pan pizza, and it made me nostalgic for it, because it was terrible, and yet I was always so excited for pizza day. A very good YouTube video on cafeteria pizza and how to make cafeteria pizza. Robert, did you have something to share with our listeners, something to recommend?

Robert: I’m afraid I haven’t done a very good job of thinking of something to recommend while I’ve been yapping away. It’s gotten some more attention lately, but I really liked Magnus von Horn’s, The Girl with the Needle. I would encourage people to check that out.

John: Fantastic. I haven’t seen it yet. Girl with the Needle is animation or is it live-action? I’m trying to remember what this movie is.

Robert: It’s live-action. Magnus is Swedish, I believe, and he lives in Poland, and the film takes place after World War I in Denmark. It was shot mostly in Poland in some really gritty, excellent locations. It’s a very cool, unique script. It’s actually based on real events. Of course, because I’m recommending it, it’s very dark, but some of the acting is just really tremendous and really nuanced.

We all know very well the feeling of when we’re reading a novel, or reading anything, really, and the author has been able to articulate something that we have semi-understood, but never been able to say. I think when actors are at the top of their craft and the story and the script and the directors are all doing their job, the acting can do the same thing where it expresses an emotional state, another state that is something that is so true that we maybe have never seen on screen before. I think that there’s a few moments that reach that level in this film.

John: That’s great. I will race to see that.

That is our show for this week. Descriptions is produced by Drew Marquardt with help this week from Zoe Black, and edited by Matthew Chilelli Our outro this week is by Guy Fee. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask at johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with the signup for our weekly newsletter called Interesting.

There’s lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. You’ll find those at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with links for all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to those premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on cycling. Robert Eggers, it’s an absolute pleasure talking with you about Nosferatu and all things moviemaking.

Robert: It was fun. When you were wrapping up the show, I thought, “Oh, this is so lucky. I don’t have to talk about cycling.” [laughs]

John: Now we do.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Let’s talk about cycling. I asked you in the pre-show thing, what does no one ever ask you about? What other things do you like to do? Tell us about cycling. Is cycling a thing you’ve done your whole life? What is cycling to you?

Robert: It’s basically my only hobby that is not directed towards my work. I used to do it competitively as a teenager and was super obsessed with it, but then as I got more into theater and music, I stopped. I also stopped hanging out with that friend group, which– Then during COVID, I was like, “Maybe I’ll get a bike,” because I was living in New Hampshire for a little while. I got a mountain bike instead of just a bike to ride around town, and then I just became totally obsessed with it again.

I have to say, it’s changed my life to be doing it super seriously now. In fact, the more that I ride and the more active I am, the more that I’m actually more efficient in my writing. I’m at my desk less and writing more and writing better because, to sound really dopey, I’m healthier. I think mountain biking is awesome because I can’t think about anything but that or you’re going to die. Then road biking is more meditative.

John: Tell me, how do you plan for it and fit it into your day to make sure it is prioritized? How do you make sure it doesn’t get knocked to the bottom every time?

Robert: It’s tough. Certainly, like we were doing press, we’re doing this tour and I was on the spin bike in the hotel gym, which sucks. There’s a popular app called Zwift where you can virtually ride, which makes it slightly less painful.

John: When you say virtually ride, it’s showing you the scenery as if–

Robert: Yes. You’re a person on a bike. You have a little avatar and you’re actually riding with other people who are riding all over the world. You’re riding through– You can, whatever, be in Southeast Asia or be in Yorkshire or whatever.

John: For a couple of years, I did Peloton. In addition to classes, they also had the virtual things where you can go out and do stuff. I stopped Peloton post-pandemic when I could really run more full-time. I run half marathons and that’s been great, but I do have to really plan and prioritize for that time because if I don’t, it just falls away and then I can’t do it.

Robert: It’s not easy and certainly in production, it barely happens. That’s just a fucker.

John: I had a director who did a pilot for me years ago and was adamant that like, “No, no, the exercise always happens.” Basically, he’ll be at the hotel gym at 4:00 in the morning because he has to do that. If he doesn’t do that, his things fall apart. I get that and also I’m not sure I could get myself to that place where I would always put that in as a priority.

Robert: Again, at the risk of boring people to death, I do need a lot of sleep. I think that if I was also doing that during production, I would be burning the candle at both ends too extremely. I save it for the weekend.

John: I need my sleep too, so I hear that. How do you protect that? If you’re in production, there’s always 19 more questions you could answer and at a certain point, you just draw a line, you turn off your phone.

Robert: Yes, I do, but I think, unfortunately, and I’d love to get to– Look, my shoots are generous compared to what a lot of people get and I’m very aware of that, but it is a time when your life is ruined. That’s just how it is, but you’re doing what you love and so you give yourself to that. I couldn’t ask for anything more.

John: Robert, it’s been great talking with you.

Robert: Same.

Links:

  • Robert Eggers
  • Nosferatu | Screenplay
  • Robert Eggers’ shorts Hansel and Gretel and The Tell-Tale Heart
  • The Girl with the Needle
  • Making School Cafeteria Pizza from the 1980s & ‘90s
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on BlueSky, Threads, Instagram, and Mastodon
  • Outro by Guy Fee (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt with help this week from Zoe Black, and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 673: Structure, and How to Enjoy a Movie, Transcript

February 4, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 673 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, let’s get back to basics. Structure, Craig. What is it? Why do writers keep freaking out about it when it’s a fundamental part of storytelling going all the way back to caveman days?

Craig: I think why do writers keep freaking out about it is a perfectly good place where we should start once we get there.

John: Then how do you enjoy a movie? We’ll teach you how not to be so meh about the things you’re watching.

Craig: [chuckles] Be born before 2000.

John: Plus, we’ll answer some listener questions because it’s been a minute. In our bonus segment for premium members, let’s talk about the wearables, the devices we wear to track what’s happening in our bodies.

Craig: Fantastic. Let’s do it.

John: First, some news. We had Oscar nominations this morning as we’re recording. We’re recording this on Thursday.

Craig: Yes.

John: As always, I’m so happy for the people who got nominated. I am bummed for the people who didn’t. And it’s all going to be okay.

Craig: Everything will be absolutely okay. Even being considered for something like that is extraordinary. I assume everybody going into that has grown up enough to know that sometimes weird stuff happens. Somehow Conclave got nominated for best picture and best actor, but not best director.

John: Yes, there’s a couple of those.

Craig: Wasn’t quite sure about that one.

John: Wicked also.

Craig: Wicked, best picture but not best screenplay?

John: Yes.

Craig: All right. Not fair to our friend, Dana Fox. There are these strange things that happen but it’s all priced in. At the end of the day, while it is nice to have a trophy, this is all part of advertising. For those folks who did get nominations, I think it’s really exciting that their movies will get more marketing money so more people can see them, particularly for the little ones.

John: But also congratulations, now you get to do six more weeks of work promoting this thing.

Craig: It is a full-time job.

John: You don’t get paid for it.

Craig: No.

John: Drew, tell us about Weekend Read because I think you have all of these scripts in Weekend Read right now.

Drew Marquardt: Every single nominated screenplay we’ve got up from Weekend Read. Should I run down the list?

John: Go for it.

Craig: Yes, please.

Drew: We have A Complete Unknown, A Real Pain, Anora, Conclave, Emilia Perez, Nickel Boys, which is a really fun read, September 5, Sing Sing, The Brutalist, and The Substance. They’re all in the “And the nominees are…” category and you can read them there.

Craig: That’s great. It used to be five things, right?

John: Yes. Now that we have both adapted and original screenplay.

Craig: Oh, I see. There are 10 best.

John: Yes.

Craig: I’m in the Academy. I should know this, right? I vote very quickly. I shouldn’t say that. I vote studiously.

John: I do too.

Craig: But I clearly don’t pay attention to how many people are in the category and I’m voting. There are 10 best pictures, but then everybody else is five. Is that right?

John: That’s correct. Every other category is five. Drew has gone through each of these scripts to make sure they actually work properly in Weekend Read. So I would just say, rather than doomscrolling on your phone, why don’t you scroll through a script and actually read something and read something good?

Craig: Anything is better than doomscrolling, anything.

John: Now, Craig, I know you took a mandate to consume less news and you’re off all the social media. How is that going for you?

Craig: Amazingly well.

John: That’s good.

Craig: I am aware of what is going on in the world. I get my news through the old-fashioned method, which is to pick a couple of periodicals that I find at least thoughtful and look at their curated reportage of what happened the day before. Not what happened 10 minutes ago and with some breath so that there can be some thoughtful analysis and context. That’s it. I do not get my news from the fire hose of insanity and I don’t watch anything with anyone talking. That’s the key. [chuckles] I do not watch talking heads. I do not look at tweets. I do not look at Instathoughts and it is spectacular.

John: During the height of the fires, I was reminded of how useful it is to have local news. It was one of those rare situations where I turned on the TV and actually watched local news as fires were happening. It was useful to see like, “Oh, my gosh, the fires are getting close here. We actually need to start packing up.” I was so grateful to have that as a service, but I do not want that in my veins all the time. I grew up in a household where the TV news was on at least four hours a day, local news and national news. It’s not helpful.

Craig: Local news, in particular, and this is no slight against them, the work that they do when something like the fires happen is extraordinary and people put their lives at risk and they’re flying around the helicopters. But for the most part, they don’t have either enough things to report that they think anyone will watch or they only have lurid things that aren’t worth reporting that they know people will watch. You get a lot of, there was an accident here and there was a shooting and there was a stabbing.

What you don’t get are, say, this bill was deliberated. All the sudden frenzy over why were tanks empty? What was going on with the firefighters? Why didn’t the pumps work? That’s been being discussed for years and the local news reported on 0% of it. It’s not a great thing to have on all day unless there’s something serious happening.

John: Indeed.

Craig: Like a car chase.

John: Like a car chase, yes.

Craig: Yes.

Craig: All right, let’s do some follow-up because it’s been a while since you and I’ve been here in person to do some follow-up on previous episodes. Drew, take us back to 671. We had a How to view a Movie about an IVF mix-up.

Drew: Several people wrote in that there were already movies out there with a similar premise. Almodovar’s Parallel Mothers. There’s a Danish movie called Maybe Baby. There’s an Indian comedy called Good News and a Mexican sitcom called Daughter from Another Mother.

Craig: Looks like they’ve covered this one, John.

John: They have covered it. Internationally it’s been well covered.

Craig: Everyone all across the world enjoys this story.

John: Also, we talked in that same episode about a Unabomber movie and several people wrote in to say there’s a series called Manhunt about Ted Kaczynski starring Paul Bettany and Sam Worthington.

Craig: Okay.

John: Sure.

Craig: Done.

John: Done.

Drew: We’ll put links in the show notes for all those.

Craig: Fantastic.

John: We also had some follow-up on way back to episode 454. We were talking about erotic fiction.

Craig: That was a long time ago.

John: Yes.

Drew: Jenny in New York City writes, I was listening to that bonus segment of episode 454 where you and Craig discuss but disappointingly do not read erotic fiction. In it, you bring up Fifty Shades of Grey as the prime example of fan fiction that managed to cross over into popular culture. Craig says that Fifty Shades of Grey seemed like it was heralding the beginning of something and that he’s surprised that nothing similar followed it. Four-plus years later, we’re seeing the floodgates open. There’s a through line from fan fiction to TikTok or BookTok to the traditional book publishing industry.

A well-known example is The Love Hypothesis, which was originally a Rey and Kylo Ren, or Reylo, fan fiction published online in 2018 and then scrubbed of all the Star Wars references and traditionally published in 2021. A film adaptation is now in development. There are also three Draco and Hermione, or Dramione, fan fictions all slated for major publication in 2025.

Craig: Okay. Wait, but also scrubbed of any–

John: Yes. That’s the thing. Fifty Shades of Grey, of course, was fan fiction that was scrubbed.

Craig: Scrubbed from Twilight.

John: Yes.

Craig: Right.

John: We were correct but just ahead of the curve.

Craig: We were ahead of the curve.

John: Now, BookTok caught up with what we predicted four years ago.

Craig: Yay, erotic fiction.

John: Yes.

Craig: Is there anything less sexy than the phrase erotic fiction?

John: Yes, it’s a —

Craig: Boner killer.

John: It’s not so good.

Craig: No.

John: I’m going to be optimistic. I’m going to be positive. This is a movie that we didn’t have in theaters before. The same thing with Fifty Shades of Grey. We weren’t having sexual thrillers on the big screen and hooray.

Craig: Not since the ‘90s.

John: Yes.

Craig: There has been a lot of discussion about millennials and Gen Z’s general lack of interest in seeing sex portrayed on screen. I think we’ve talked about it before, possibly because if they want to watch sex on screen, they watch people having sex. They don’t need it or want it in their traditional narrative. But it is part of our life and it’s very much a part of how we relate to each other on very deep levels. It screws things up. It makes things better. It makes things worse. It creates all the people around us and at least most of them. Let’s bring it on.

Also, it is interesting that so much of fan fiction turns toward the erotic. All the way back to– You’ve heard the phrase slash fiction?

John: Of course. Yes, Kirk/Spock.

Craig: Exactly. It began with people writing erotic fiction about Star Trek and specifically like Kirk has sex with Spock or Kirk has sex with McCoy or McCoy has sex with Scotty, whatever it is. It’s not like the stuff that happens now is only because of that. I think it’s always been that impulse is there’s a fandom and they want to write sexy versions of the characters.

John: They do. Also, they’re pining for something that they cannot get in the mainstream version of it.

Craig: Oh, that’s an interesting point.

John: I think the reason why slash fiction is it’s an attempt to take these characters out of their normal molds and use them how they want to use them. There are, obviously, queer writers were behind part of it, but also women, basically. It’s a way of taking control of these male characters and using them how they wish they could be seen.

Craig: Also, if you love those stories, you make a great point. You’re never going to get sex in a Harry Potter film. Of course, you have to wait until they’re old enough, right? Their senior year, you’re still not going to get sex. It’s not how it works. There’s a unsatisfied desire for a certain version of that relationship. That makes total sense.

John: All right. Let’s go on to our marquee topic. This is actually prompted by another listener question. This one from Christine. Drew, help us out.

Drew: She says, in episode 662, which was the 20 questions, Craig responded to a listener saying something like, there’s a lot of people who can write glittering dialogue but so few who can use structure well. It had my husband and I fist-pumping. We agree. I certainly can’t do it well. Sometimes it feels like perfect pitch. Either you have it or you don’t. Craig and John, would you talk to us about examples of how you used or struggled with structure in some of your own work?

John: Great, happy to. I think first we should just talk about structure and what we even mean by structure because it’s one of those terms that I think is used as a cudgel against newer writers. Once you actually think about what it really is, it’s, of course, fundamental to every story you’ve ever heard.

Craig: It is story. It’s a fancy word for saying, this is what happens, this is who it happens to, and this is why. That is what stories are. People get excited about the clothing that we put on that stuff because that’s what hits their eyeballs and ears first. What do they look like? What are they saying? The saying, in particular, gets overemphasized. But how do you tell a good story?

Everybody who grows up in any family that’s even moderately sized or even if you just see your extended family at Christmas, doesn’t matter, everybody knows that there’s somebody that’s going to sit around and tell a story that is so boring and bad. But you also know there’s somebody who’s great at it. When that one starts telling a story, everybody leans forward because they know how to do it, how you begin, how you middle, how you end, what’s the point, how it all comes around and coheres together. Poetics by Aristotle.

John: I was a journalism major, and so in journalism, you’re taught to answer the basic questions, who, what, where, when, why, and then how. Structure’s really– John’s talking about the when. It’s like, when do events happen? What is the order of those events? When does the audience learn something? Those are all fundamental parts of storytelling. When you have somebody at a family gathering who is just awful at it and boring, it’s like you did not plan the details and how you’re going to lay out the story and the storytelling in a way that was actually interesting and intriguing.

You’re starting way too early, you’re going way too long. There’s just no clear structure to the story. We know we’re trapped in this endless middle of things. When something is well-structured, you feel beginnings and endings, you feel the closure of moments, you feel that there’s just– There’s a rhythm to it. You’ve recognized what the audience needs and where they’re at and how to move forward. That’s what structure is. What it’s not is some cookie-cutter template. It’s not like, “Oh, here are the magic clothespins which you’re going to hang all your things on. It’s not a thing you impose upon a story. It is the skeleton that’s holding the whole story up.

Craig: I think when you said recognize, that’s where the talent is. Because I don’t know how to teach somebody to recognize something. It might be instructive for people at home to think about Boring Uncle Ron and how Boring Uncle Ron does tell stories because at least you can say, “I recognize why that story stinks.” For instance, he looped back around. He told me something that should have been told earlier. I can’t explain why, except I wish he had mentioned that earlier. It screws up the context.

There was no suspense. He told me what was going to happen before it happened. He just casually said something that he should have milked and understood that I would have found meaningful. There are parts where there are too many details. There are parts where there are no details at all. It doesn’t end. He’s not sure how to end it. It doesn’t have a point. If it doesn’t have a point, it wasn’t the point that the beginning was getting at. There’s no revelation, no purpose, and it is episodic. This, and this, and this, and this. A boring Uncle Ron may be able to teach people more about structure than we think.

John: The other thing that’s important to recognize is that structure is all around you. You just may not be seeing it as structure. Every song you’ve ever heard has structure. There are verses and choruses and hooks and it has bridges. There’s a pattern that fits your brain well. Because there are things like verses and choruses, you can break from them and that surprise us, which is great.

There’s still a sense of what those things are. The equivalents for those are scenes and sequences in movies and TV shows. It’s why learning to write the four-act or five-act structure of a classic one-hour TV show is really, really useful. Even if those commercial breaks are taken out, there’s still a sense of like, “I know where we’re at in this show.” There’s a flow to it.

Craig: There’s a rhythm. It’s a little bit like having a conversation with yourself. One of you is going to tell a story and the other part of you is going to be listening to the story. Part of structure is saying, how does hearing this for the first time me like that? Did I like that? Did that make me happy? Did it bore me? Does it seem clunky? You need to have a relationship with an audience even when there is none because we are performing a service.

Nobody other than Kafka, theoretically, who tried to burn everything he wrote, is just writing to be not read or filming to not be seen and so forth. You have to let the audience in.

You don’t need to let them all in. Your audience can just be you and what you like. You then need to be responsive to yourself and go, “No.” Even though I just came up with that, even though that was my idea of what should happen now and why, the me that’s listening, unimpressed.

John: Let’s talk through our assumptions about the very fundamental structure of a movie or a pilot, the things that are introducing a character for the first time and introducing what it is that they’re trying to do. Early in the story, near the very start, we need to have a sense of who the character is, what they want, what the world is like, what the obstacles in the way that are going to be there, who else is important.
Those are fundamental things. The fundamental choices you’re going to be making, even if you don’t think about it, you’re making those choices by which order you’re putting those scenes in and how you’re telling the audience about those things.

As they’re going off and doing some things, what is the sequence of events that’s happening? What are the choices that they’re making? Where are they going? What are the obstacles along the way? When you see somebody criticize the script for being, “I think you have some structure issues here,” it’s what they’re really saying is like, “I got lost. I got lost in where we’re at, what I should have been focusing on.

The characters might have great dialogue. It might be really enjoyable to have watched them do their thing, but I didn’t feel any momentum. I didn’t feel like there was anything going there. I didn’t know what to even look for in terms of what’s going to happen at the end. What am I even expecting to happen down the road.”

Craig: Oftentimes there’s a lack of intention and we interpret that as a structure problem. Every time, you’re right. When people say there’s a structure problem, they’re trying to say there’s a problem of some other kind. You just don’t know what the word is. Sometimes it’s as if you’re watching a conductor who doesn’t have a sense of how to alter tempo, create anticipation, where to use silence, as opposed to sound. There’s no shape.

John: Yes, there’s no shape.

Craig: There’s no shape. It’s just there and it’s not picking you up and then throwing you down. It’s not putting its hands over your eyes and then revealing something new. These things get shuffled out as structure problems, which for writers can be very frustrating early on because you immediately then go running to some structure book. The structure books are not going to help you. You do need, I think, to think a little bit how to write a movie. A lot of structure is about the main character and how they change. The story is revolving around that. It’s the nucleus and everything’s revolving around that. That creates a sense of intention and purpose, which in theory, will imbue this story with structure.

John: Going back to Christine’s question, when you talk about examples of how you use or struggle with structure in some of your own work. Looking back at the movies I’ve written, by far the most complicated movie structurally was Big Fish because in Big Fish, you have two protagonists who have their own agendas. There’s two different timelines.

They’re intersecting with each other. They are each other’s antagonist. There’s so much stuff to set up and plates to start spinning. Those first 10 pages have to do just a lot of work to sort of start the engines for things going.

The setup is so important, but then it’s deciding, when am I moving back and forth between these different stories? How is my choice to leave this storyline and go to this storyline progressing both of them? How to make sure we’re really moving forward in time and energy as we’re going through the movie, even though we’re intercutting between these two things?
That was a case where I had an instinctive sense of what the story was I needed to tell, but it literally did have to just like pull out a sheet of paper and work out like, “This is how I’m moving back and forth between these things. Then I had to plan scenes that would make transitions between those things feel logical and natural.” That is the hard work of structure sometimes.

Most movies I write don’t need that, but there are situations where you have multiple plot lines happening at the same time and you are going to have to just do that logistical planning work to figure out how you’re going to do that. TV shows are a great example too. Oftentimes, I guess, Last of Us is much more classically, you tend to follow a smaller group of characters, but you are cutting back and forth between them, and deciding when you’re going to cut back and forth between them becomes really important. With Joel or with Ellie and deciding when we’re going to move back and forth to those things are important writing decisions well before they become editorial decisions.

Craig: No question. Television episodes are I find generally easier structurally to deal with because they’re shorter and there is an understanding and expectation that you will get to have multiple starts and multiple endings. So you simplify a little bit. By simplifying, you get to be a little crazier with structure. Television shows are structured way weirder than movies are. You look at the structure of a season, any season, pick any season of Breaking Bad. No movie is complicated like that. It’s not even a complicated show.

John: Also, in series television, you’re looking at the structure across multiple episodes too. Where’s the audience at? What are we setting up?

Craig: There’s episodic structure, there’s season structure, there’s series structure. Movies are, I find to be really challenging because you get one shot and that’s it. When it’s in, there’s no multiple innings. There’s no, “well, that wasn’t my favorite episode.” It’s one episode, that’s it, the end. I won’t name titles, but I will say that I have worked on things that I’m not credited for that were big pieces of IP and they had a lot of expectations and they also were from different media. It wasn’t like I was taking a movie and remaking it. It was another thing.

In those cases, sometimes the freedom of whatever that medium was made it very hard to structure a movie such that the movie was in movie time. It wasn’t five hours long and it wasn’t 40 minutes long. It was roughly movie time and got you through the movement you needed to get. All the things you needed and wanted were there and the stuff wasn’t. Most importantly, everything made sense because other things, a lot of other things can afford to not make sense for a while. Novels can wander off and not make sense for a bunch of it. Kurt Vonnegut novels routinely don’t make sense and then they do in the end and it’s beautiful. For long stretches, you’re like, “What is happening?”

Musicals can wander off down weird alleyways, do bizarre songs, and then come back and it’s fine. It’s fine because also you’re in a big room with them and they’re singing and it’s cool and who cares? Songs can do this, but movies, it’s harder. It’s harder particularly when you’re doing movies like you and I have done. Logic, as it turns out, is also part of structure, making sure that facts are in evidence that one thing follows another reasonably, and that people aren’t contradicting themselves or their story.

John: You were talking about adaptations and adapting a piece of IP. It’s been my experience is that when I’m adapting a novel, there’s so much you love about the novel and you recognize I can’t just tear off the pages and feed them in the projector. They fundamentally have different engines. I have to have an honest conversation with the author if the author’s around, the engine of the movie is going to be different than the engine in your book. Some things are going to need to happen in different order and different sequences and some things are just not going to happen because it’s a movie and the movie has to be about two hours long.

There’s just expectations and payoffs that are just very different for a movie. Having written three books now, I can say it’s really nice to be able to describe the texture of the streets and all that stuff and it provides such incredible rich detail and it’s immersive. That’s not movie stuff. You got to move on past that. When I’ve been tasked with adapting a piece of IP that’s more like a character or a video game or something like that, one that’s not especially narrative, then you do have a lot more freedom to actually make a movie.

Craig: If they give you a toy, just make sure that the toy is named the toy and that it does the one signature thing that the toy does and the rest is up to you.

John: There’s a liberation to that where it’s just like, I’m not so stuck and beholden on those things. I don’t have all the benefits of the stuff that was in the book, but it’s not so stuck on it.

Craig: It’s almost like the challenge is taking something that has been properly structured for its medium and then telling it again in a different medium. It’s almost like you’ve got to break a lot of bones and then knit them back together because like you get a dolphin and you need to deliver a penguin. A lot of work happens there and some bones just are left behind and it can be messy and it will never really be a penguin and it certainly won’t be a dolphin. It’ll be its own thing. It’s hard, but this is how important structure is really. It’s like we need to be able to tell the story coherently for this medium.

John: Do you have other examples from your own work of things that were particularly challenging to structure or things that surprised you in finding a structure for telling the story? We talked through Chornobyl and figured out where the breaks were in that story.

Craig: Other than the things that I– There were a few jobs where I thought this probably shouldn’t be a movie. There were some things where I thought this should probably be three movies, not one. Famously the Weinsteins had the rights to Lord of the Rings and they refused to let Peter Jackson make three movies. They wanted him to make one movie to cover the three books of Lord of the Rings. Just to be clear, I watched the extended version every year of each of those three movies.

The extended version of each movie is three and a half hours. The theatrical maybe were two and a half. The idea of we’re going to smash all that into one movie is insane. Sometimes you’re running into– I have been in those spots, really when you feel like you don’t have enough runway to either take off or land, it’s terrifying.

John: I will say that when I look back to like stuff I’ve passed on, sometimes it just didn’t spark for me, or the character didn’t spark, the story didn’t spark. There have also been times where this is not a movie or I can sense it’s really fundamentally a structural problem that we’re not going to get past. The audience expectation of when it’s to make it to the screen and what I can actually put on the screen, it’s just not going to match up right because there’s just not time to do it.

Craig: There have also been situations where I found as I was going through it, that the other people involved, be they a director or producer or star, felt that the value was more in some other aspect of it. The pure storytelling was just don’t worry about that because we’re going to do this and it’s going to be cool. I think sometimes action movies fall prey to this. We all love Die Hard because it’s so perfectly structured, but a lot of action movies you can feel them going and we have to have this cool thing so just make a lot of convoluted reasons why it’s going to happen because really people are there for the action.

If you miss that thread of story, like so our friend Chris Morgan who works on the Fast and Furious movies, they found a smart way to create a simple structure, family. That’s it. It doesn’t have to be complicated because they’re smart. They know people are coming for the cars, but that’s why they think they’re coming. The reason they keep coming back is for the characters and the relationships because you could just watch cars doing crazy stuff on YouTube if you want. It’s also important to have partners who recognize we’re going to tell everybody this is about the cars privately in this room. We do know it’s about basic fundamentals that we have to get right.

John: I completely agree with you in terms of family was a central unifying core idea. I would be nervous about conflating that with structure.

Craig: It would have to be an argument, right?

John: It’s a central argument. That’s the central thing we’re always doing.

Craig: Family is worth more than blank.

John: Then as you’re looking at what are the events of this movie? How are we going to structure them? How is this all going to feel and tie back into it? It’s making sure that you are able to remind the audience and remind the characters that it’s all about family, that it’s all going to tie back in there, making sure that of all these set pieces you’re building, which is these things are musicals, but with explosions.

Craig: Exactly. What is the fundamental difference between the structure of one of your favorite Fast and Furious movies and one of your favorite Pitch Perfect movies? Both universal films, oddly enough, family, right? A bunch of people come together. One of them is not, is a loner of a sort. The other ones need them. There are villains that must be overcome. They all find that they are more powerful together and they face their fear and they win through performance of some kind, be it driving or singing a cool song.

John: Absolutely. Those writers as they’re looking at how they’re going to structure their stories. They’re looking at these are the singing moments, the big action set pieces. These are how we’re going to do it. Looking at the note card layout, which is the way they think about like– I don’t actually lay out cards, but you used to do that. You just don’t need cards anymore.

Craig: I now do more whiteboard.

John: As you’re looking at the big whiteboard map of where the story is, that’s what we’re really talking about, structures. It’s making sure that they’re not just individual things but they’re connected in ways that are meaningful and actually provide value.

Craig: And if you’re looking at structure in that way, when you put up a card that says a big race or they sing, you have to know why. They race, but the point of this race is he disappoints somebody and feels horrible or he chickens out or he realizes that he’s better than he thought he was. Why do they sing this song? Because this song shows that they’re all thinking about themselves only and not about each other. That’s why those note cards happen. That’s structure.

John: You’re asking, why is this happening now? What is the effect of this happening now on the stuff before and afterwards?

Craig: How does this change what comes next?

John: We say you’re asking yourself, but that’s one of those cases where having the writer’s room, if you’re in a TV situation or having a writing partner, we know a lot of partners who one person is the person who’s better at sensing this overall map of story and another person is really good at the execution details.

Craig: David Zucker, when I first started working on Scary Movie 3, he didn’t know me. I was shoved in there, right? It’s week one and he has no idea who I am and he’s like, “I don’t know this guy.” He was like, “You’re like structure boy.” I was structure boy. Then it was funny. It was funny. He didn’t mean it as an insult. He actually really respected structure. He was obsessed with note cards and he was a big believer. I’m talking about him like he’s dead. He’s perfectly alive. He would appreciate that I’m talking about him like he’s dead.

He was very rigorous about logic. Actually, he was quite grateful that structure boy was there to help because I think he had real problems with that in his part– He had been trying and there is a great structure to like, for instance, Naked Gun, fantastic structure, but it was hard for him. It took him a lot of work. It was useful to have a structure boy.

John: Just thinking back to last week’s conversation with Jesse Eisenberg, he was talking about like an idea and needing structure in order to actually have the idea make sense. He was talking about how originally he had this approach for the movie and he realized the big reveal happened at the end of act one and he just didn’t have an act two or an act three because things just happened too early. He needed to change everything around and he needed to change the premise so that he could actually have a structure that made sense for the course of the movie.

Craig: Therein is the difference between good writers and not good writers. Good writers will make a mistake and then go, “Oh, that’s a mistake.” Bad writers will make a mistake and go, “This is awesome.”

John: The bad writer might just spend a sec, “Oh, but I’ll figure it out later.”

Craig: No one will care.

John: Or they just give up.

Craig: They give up. I think the biggest issue is it’s that having that other you that can just be the audience with its arms crossed going, “Yes, that’s fine.” What’s worse than hearing that’s fine? I’ve said that to myself before and I’m like, “Oh boy, let’s not do that.”

John: All right. On the topic of that’s fine, let’s talk about the meh. This comes from a newsletter that somebody sent me, it’s written by Sasha Chapin. He writes that, “I believe one of my skills is that I’m good at liking things. I intensely enjoy many of my experiences, whether we’re talking about music, art, people, food, places, books, movies, anything. It’s not that I don’t have critical judgment or favorites. The ceiling on my appreciation is high, but the floor is high too.”

He runs through some of this advice for enjoying things. I thought they applied really well to enjoying a movie because what I do find is I feel like people have, some of it’s just as you age up, but there’s a cynicism and it’s like, ehh, that I feel happening more. I just want to remind people of ways to enjoy a movie. Because sometimes if you’re sitting and watching a movie, you’re like, “I could just look at my phone.” No, there are other things you can look at instead.

Craig: I think sometimes people say they didn’t like a movie because there is a risk of saying you like something you can be sneered at. No one will sneer at you for not liking something. If anything, you can be like, “You all cretins. You’ve taken delight in this, you idiot.” It’s hard to say you like things. People will sit through a movie silently watching the entire thing. Then when it’s over, go, “I mean, it was okay.” What else gets you to sit there silently fixated upon it for two hours? Nothing.

John: While you’re staring silently at a thing, wondering whether you like it, some of his advice first is look at the other part. He’s saying, move your attention beyond the part that you’re immediately focused on. For his example, it’s like, listen to the baseline in a song and listen to actually hear what the bass is doing, which can be fascinating. For me, sometimes if I’m not fully enjoying that, but I can then I can look at the sets, I can hear the score, I can just appreciate the world in which the story is in. That’s okay. It’s okay to not maybe be enamored by everything in the movie that you’re experiencing but to focus on one thing, one part of it is also okay.

Craig: Sometimes people think that unless a movie is perfect, it’s bad. Movies will make a mistake. That mistake is not an objective mistake. What it is a disruption in your relationship with it. You are on a great date with a movie and then it did something and you went, “Oh, no, I don’t like that thing.” Well get over it because, like dates, movies will have flaws for you. Other people might enjoy those. You didn’t like it, accept it as part of the process where nothing is perfect, and then get back to liking it. Don’t just go, “There it is.” You know what? The movie had me until this person said this thing and then I was like, “Oh, this is garbage.” That’s stupid. That’s how stupid people talk.

John: Another bit of advice, let the intensity in. He’s talking about how people don’t generally like heavy metal because it sounds like an assault on their ears.

Craig: Yes. An awesome assault.

John: Sometimes a movie will do something like and I’ll just cringe on its behalf. Sometimes you just let the movie be the fullest version of itself and try to appreciate for what the movie is doing, even if it’s not necessarily your taste, just watch it enjoy itself.

Craig: Yes. And if a movie is doing what it was intended to do and you can feel they wanted to make a large macaroni and cheese and I just got a huge bowl of macaroni and cheese. Who love macaroni and cheese? What do you mean? Yell at the macaroni? They did what they would. Really absolutely appreciate at least this is for macaroni and cheese. They cared. They delivered it. What else could we ask for them?

John: 100%.

Craig: I feel like comedies in particular get judged so harshly for this. Again, if it’s not Tootsie, it’s no good.

John: “That joke didn’t work for me.”

Craig: What about the 5,000 other words? You laughed a bunch of times and you’re not even in a comedy club where everybody’s drunk. Do you understand why? The two-drink minimum is the reason 70% of comedians have a job. Everyone’s a little toasty and it’s fun and you’re all together and somebody’s doing it live and adapting and feeling you out and saying, “You don’t like this joke. You’re going to– Oh, you like that one? I’ll give you more of those.” Movies are stuck. They’re only going to do the one thing. That’s it. You could be alone in the theater and you’re like, “Eh, yes.”

John: Next bit of advice. Develop a crush on the creator. Allow yourself to be transiently infatuated with the person who produced the work.

Craig: Who likes that idea? Sexy Craig. You’re infatuated with me.

John: Think about the artist’s intention —

Craig: He wasn’t even giving any of that. He’s so horrified by Sexy Craig.

John: Here’s what I’ve learned is don’t acknowledge it.

Craig: You just turn away from it. At the end of Nightmare on Elm Street, she turns her back on Freddy Krueger and he disappears.

John: That’s my hope.

Craig: You keep hoping.

John: Thinking about intention, why did this creator do this? What are they trying to achieve? Actually, it can be useful to stop and if you’re not enjoying this moment right now, think about the actual person making it or what the intention was behind the thing can get you reengaged in what they’re doing.

Craig: Give people the benefit of the doubt. Now, there are times where you will watch a movie and you will think, “Oh, this is just poorly done.” In those circumstances, sometimes I will think to myself, “Giving these people the benefit of the doubt, something went wrong here.” Rather than me presuming that everybody sat down and said, “This is exactly what we want to do,” did it, showed it to me, and it was a mess. What if I think to myself, “What was this supposed to be? What, who, how, what went wrong? What collided with this?” That in and of itself is interesting, to allow something to be bad without saying and it was intentionally so. It is almost never intentionally so.

John: Even if something isn’t bad, but it’s just mid or meh, it’s like–

Craig: Mid or meh is the worst. I am so frustrated with this mid or meh. No, it’s not. It’s not mid or meh. The only thing that I find mid or meh is the usage of mid and meh, which is the most mediocre thing you can do, just repeating a blase indifference that 1,000 other people have repeated in the last five seconds.

John: What I do find, I try to stop it myself, but I see other people doing it as well, is I feel like people are writing their letterbox review while they’re watching the movie.

Craig: Oh, the worst.

John: To this whole exercise, I’m just trying to remind you to be present for the movie that’s actually in front of you. Don’t try to anticipate your reaction afterwards.

Craig: You bought a ticket, give yourself to it. You’re giving it your time, give it your time. Everybody grew up on 1,000 film critics and they all want to be a film critic. By the way, that’s a job that I guess everybody feels like they’re going to just do for free. It’s so strange. It’s as if people go to a restaurant, have a great meal, they hate on it, they call it mid, they go home, and then they make their own version of it. It’s just, don’t be a critic. That’s a job, which is already questionable.

Just give in and just watch it honestly. There’ll be time enough. How many times have you seen something, and then four days later, you went, “You know what? I actually love that. I was wrong. It won’t leave me. Now I realize I just needed some time.” You don’t give yourself time if you immediately go home and start, letterbox.

John: Here’s the other thing I think is, letterbox, you’re rating it one to five stars, and you’re also giving a thing, but just move beyond like or dislike and just appreciate something he says in his articles, like begrudging enjoyment, or like– There are multiple ways to experience a thing.

Craig: Flavors.

John: here’s things like, I don’t want to watch that movie again, but I’m glad I watched it.

Craig: I’ll give you an example.

John: Please.

Craig: I went to go see a movie called, I believe it was called The Island by Michael Bay.

John: Oh yes. I remember that.

Craig: Remember Michael Bay’s The Island.

John: Scarlett Johansson.

Craig: Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor. It wasn’t a movie that I thought after when I walked out, “That was awesome.” I didn’t have that feeling. There were a lot of things I remember thinking, a lot of this doesn’t seem to add up. As I was going along, I would keep getting jostled out by logic convolution.

But there is a car chase in it that is so spectacular. For me, that was worth the price of admission. I marveled at it. I still marvel at it. I don’t understand how they did it. It is so incredible to me. When I see things like that in movies that I otherwise maybe I’m not enjoying, I go, well, there. You know what? I’m still talking about– Do you know how many movies I saw that I was like, it was really good? I don’t even remember seeing them. But I remember the car chase in The Island.

John: Last bit of advice here that he gives us is, notice how your body enjoys it. What are the physical reactions? Again, we’re talking about being present for it and actually looking at your own feelings. When I’m watching something that is genuinely scary, that’s part of the reason why I’m watching it, so I actually get that physical sensation. When I’m watching something that’s so funny that it hurts, that’s why you go. Just acknowledge and clock that because I think so often you forget afterwards like, “Oh yes, it was actually so funny that my stomach hurt.”

Craig: It was so funny that I laughed. That’s a physical response, just laughing of any kind. It’s so hard to make people do. I love that aspect of it. I find that the physical response that I notice the most when I’m being dislodged from the experience is a wandering. My mind begins to wander and I feel myself returning to my body. It wanders away from the movie, back into my skull. When I’m in it, whether it’s a show, I’m gone.

John: Yes. You’re not physically there.

Craig: I’m not there.

John: You’re inside the world.

Craig: What an amazing trick of the mind.

John: All right. Some advice about movies, TV shows, I would say just let yourself be entertained by the things you’re choosing to watch and see and listen to.

Craig: Be brave enough to like things. It’s actually a more mature and more enlightened state of being when it comes to interacting with art.

John: Agreed. Let’s turn to questions. First, we have Elizabeth in Brooklyn.

Drew: Elizabeth writes, “How does a screenwriter for hire best work with a director? I find that more and more I’m coming on to studio and streamer projects where a director is already attached. Every director is different, obviously, and I’m finding that a good many of them are not story people. They don’t have a sense of the necessary scaffolding or how to build a character’s journey.

Craig: Structure.

Drew: “They obsess over the weeds without zooming up to see the whole landscape. The real problem is those who don’t know what they don’t know. They want to do script brainstorming sessions with me, which is actually them just excitedly pitching contradictory suggestions or plain old bad ideas. They fight me on beats that the studio loves. Should I be thinking of this relationship where you don’t speak the same language?

Sometimes they’re infuriating, but you need to be patient and respectful so that you can create material that suits them and so that the relationship endures. Or is it okay to set up boundaries so that you can go off and write your draft without being subject to many unhelpful brainstorming sessions? When the director doesn’t want me to write something studio has approved, which master am I supposed to serve?”

John: All right. Craig, you and I actually know this writer who’s writing in. Congratulations, Elizabeth. You’re at a point now where you’re dealing with directors on projects and you’re–

Craig: The way we have a million times.

John: Yes. This is all so familiar. I just say like, big giant hug around you. I know how hard this is. Craig is shaking his head.

Craig: If you listen to that question and you put it in the context of any other business when she gets to the point of, should I just be really patient? What? This happens all the time because our business has overindulged directors in film for some reason. It’s a little bit like a history teacher is paired with a history student to write a report on history and the history student is put in charge. That’s what it’s like.

John: To me, it’s like you’re any software engineer who has to talk to Elon Musk.

Craig: That also works. [chuckles] You realize the authority is backwards. It is not earned. I want to be clear about something. There are directors who are brilliant at this. You know how you know that a director is deserving of the authority they have? They are deserving of the authority they have. They earned it. They demonstrated it either through their own writing o– With somebody like Steven Spielberg, he works with screenwriters all the time and he is so good at it that he brings the best out of them. He respects what they do and then does what he does so brilliantly.

We have a situation where somebody’s been writing for 30 years. Let’s give them a couple Oscars while we’re at it. Let’s say that they’re paid $4 million to work on this. The director is a first-time director. Why would you put that one in charge of that one? What do you do? I’m a big fan of boundaries and I’m a big fan of remembering that you do work for the studio. The studio, which bends over backwards and is all worried about directors, needs to know. Otherwise, you just end up writing bad things to make a conversation go better. That’s not going to help anybody, particularly you.

John: What I want to draw the distinction between is the conversation and the writing. I think sometimes, Elizabeth, you just have to like– It’s almost going back to this conversation we just had about how to enjoy a thing. It’s like all this stuff is coming your way from this director and you just have to take it in and feel it. You get much better at like, I hear what you’re saying there and it feels like that could match up with this thing we were talking about earlier.

You get a sense of how to feel that stuff and how to make it all work. But some of what you’re getting paid for, and I hope you’re getting paid well, is just to exist in those rooms and hear that and make people feel heard and then still be able to go off and write a freaking great script that they’re going to be excited to do. The other thing, which originally I was really nervous about, but I became clear that they won’t remember all the things they pitched at you.

Craig: Oh, no. They won’t be delighted by anything more than a good script, regardless of what all the conversations were because they’re not writers and they don’t know. I’m assuming that this is a non-writing director. I’m also assuming that this is not a director that has earned his or her stripes through achievement and success. It doesn’t sound like that. There are directors that you and I know of who are just bananas. Everyone knows they’re bananas. Their thing is when they capture footage and work with actors, their bananas-ness sometimes gets great things. The script has to be the adult in the room.

You and I have talked about ScreenwriterPlus. It’s not enough to be talented. It’s not enough to have a great work ethic. You also need to be extraordinarily diplomatic and shrewd. You are being hired to manage, sometimes, to manage that person. To deliver a good script that the actor will like and the studio will like without the director blowing up and going crazy.

Don’t overindulge the director and don’t be too afraid of them. If that director has so much authority that they can boot you off the movie because you’re not writing down their insane stuff, then you don’t belong there. Then you’re writing a different movie anyway.

John: Going back to Spielberg, I was lucky to work with him on three different projects. He is so smart and is also not a natural writer. He does have the understanding of what he wants to do in a movie and how to make movies. He knows how to do it and he’ll pitch you things. But it is your responsibility to find out how to go from that thing to what actually needs to happen in the movie and the script. Recognizing that people can be awesome at certain things and not be as good as other things. That’s great. That’s true. You also can’t design costumes. You can’t do other things.

Craig: Neither can we. We know how to do it. I write and I direct and I produce. You know what I don’t do? I don’t light. I don’t know how to light. If you put a gun to my head, I know what a bounce does and what a flag does. That’s part of how I tell stories. When I’m working with my cinematographer, I look at something and I’m like, okay, here’s what I think about this and why, or here’s what I want to achieve and why.

Then they execute it with a level of technical prowess that will never fully be understandable to me. There’s a lot that’s going on invisible under the surface that I don’t notice. I just see the end product. And I appreciate them for that because I can’t do what they do. That’s how a great director will work with a great writer, by understanding they need to go do their thing and I’m going to give them a good target to hit. I acknowledge there’s a lot of stuff under the surface that’s happening that I’m not aware of.

The ding-dong directors will casually kick things around like drunken toddlers with no understanding of what they’ve just unraveled and done. It’s very frustrating. [laughs] You know what you’re hearing is the 25 years of working with directors, some of whom I deeply love. I love working with Todd Phillips. I love working with Denis Villeneuve. There’s so many directors that I really enjoyed working with. On my show, there are directors I love working with, even though it’s a different circumstance and I’m the authority. But man, ooh, John, you and I both have been in some rooms where we are just like hostages to a madman.

John: Yes. That’s reality. Let’s do a simple question. Let’s do one from Tad. He’s writing about point of view.

Drew: Tad says, “I get confused about how to return from a point-of-view shot. If I use a his POV slug line, do I need to use another slug line when I leave his POV. If I use John as the next slugline, then I’m trapped on John until I get to the next scene heading, or else I get into a string of sluglines as I jump from character to character.”

John: I understand what Tad is running into here, and I think it’s the assumption that once you put in an intermediate slugline like his POV, they were trapped in there forever, and you’re not. Sometimes is good to signal to the reader like, “We’re no longer in POV.” In my own scripts, I’ve done end POV, or it’s not that, it’s a separate slugline.

Craig: It’s lengthy. Then I think it’s reasonable to say, we begin this person’s POV, and then there’s multiple paragraphs of what they’re seeing, what they’re seeing, and then it says end POV if it’s like a section. If it’s just one moment, I think the next paragraph, John’s POV, Brenda enters the room. On Brenda. You can do that.

John: Yes, totally. That also work.

Craig: Walking into the restaurant.

John: It’s also good to remember the intermediary slugline is really useful, breaking up stuff on the page and give you a sense of how stuff flows. If you’re just popping into POV for one shot or something, you can put POV as part of the paragraph.

Craig: Always. I don’t think I ever break it off on its own because it feels so technical. I want people to just be in the POV rather than being in, now, the POV you’re portraying, and then the POV. I just want them in it. You can be informal about that completely.

John: A case where intermediary sluglines can be really helpful is, let’s say you have a scene that’s happening and then you have characters who are breaking off and they’re having their own little side conversation. That’s a situation where it feels like it’s a scene within a scene, and that’s useful for that. In those situations, it’ll probably make sense that you’re just sticking with those characters and then you have to get us back over to the other shot.

Craig: Sometimes I just use capital letters to do the same job. I might say, OFF IN ONE CORNER, all in caps, then dash, and then spacebar, dash, spacebar, stuff happens. Off in one corner will tell me the story.

John: Totally. All right. Let’s do our One Cool Things. My one cool thing is a good blog post article by Maggie Appleton called Growing a Human: The First 30 Weeks, which is just talking about what she learned during her first pregnancy here. She’s about to have a baby. A quote, I’ll read from it. “After decades of existing in a culture that worships rational, modern scientific knowledge, preferably discovered within the last 500 years, it’s been humbling to realize how much the pre-modern animalistic parts of me know and are capable of, and how much of me feels innately, subconsciously designed to want this and feel perfectly equipped to do it.”

What I like about the post as it goes on longer is that it’s recognizing that, oh yes, I’m an animal who’s doing this thing. It’s not even in my control. It’s just like, this is just a thing that’s happening. I’m just a passenger to it. Also, that sense of, so many people will tell you there’s one natural right way to do a thing. She brings up the example of that organic banana you’re picking, bananas exist only because we made them. The banana in the wild is not a thing at all. Just to recognize that you’re living in this messy place of like, yes, it’s fully human and natural, but it’s also a cultural system that we’re in and just you got to float in that.

Craig: “No genetically modified organisms in this.” It’s all genetically modified. It’s called mixing the strains. What are they talking about? No genetically modified stuff in this tangelo.

What’s fascinating about what Maggie says is because her body is designed to do an extraordinarily complicated thing, she is now in the mix of that, discovering how much that is part of who she is and how weirdly not in conscious control we are of it.

Over on the other side of the aisle, simpler, dumber people, like say a lot of men will be horny, angry, violent, hungry, where we’ve always been in touch with that. We just called it horny because of the different way it works. Our culture, boys will be boys, indulges this notion of, they’re not really in control of all these things. We are, but there are aspects of it that are underpinned by subconscious things way beneath this level. It is interesting how a complicated person doing a very complicated process can suddenly discover this.

John: We have a new baby in our life and it’s been so great to be able to have a baby around and to be babysitting and just to have this small human. I was just watching my daughter hold a baby and feed a baby. She’s like, “Oh my God, it all kicked in.” She really felt all this —

Craig: Oh my God. Are you going to be a grandpa?

John: No, not anytime soon. But that sense of like, oh yes, it’s like a primal physical thing that happens.

Craig: That’s why we keep making more people. It is primal and people will laugh about it, but it’s real. Absolutely. It’s not for everybody. There are plenty of women that pick up a baby and go, “Get this baby away from me.” Perfectly fine. The biological clock syndrome and all that stuff, it’s just science. It’s just hormones.

John: This is me talking out of my ass, but I do wonder if some of the population decline is young people’s decision like, “I don’t want to have kids.” Maybe it’s because they haven’t been around– They’ve just not kicked in because they never got to do that. Because there are fewer babies, there are going to be fewer babies.

Craig: That may be true. Being around babies makes you like babies. Although being around babies casually makes you like babies. That’s why grandparents are like, “Give me, make me a grandparent so that I can show up for an hour and be like, oh, it’s crying now. Bye.”

John: I’m getting the grandparent ability to hang out with the kids.

Craig: You and I have parented our own babies.

John: Still, I’d recommend it.

Craig: Yes. The ride of a lifetime, the ride of a life. There ain’t nothing like it. You want to talk about like when you watch horror movies to feel scared? I’m kidding.

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: Now you know what fear is.

My one cool thing this week is the 2024 rules of D&D in a different aspect. I finally got to play.

John: Fantastic.

Craig: I’m in another campaign where I play. It’s the first campaign I played where it was D&D 2024 rules from the start. It works great.

John: That’s great.

Craig: It works great.

John: What are some surprises, the things you didn’t anticipate? Because we talked through some of the changes.

Craig: Sure. Character creation is a little bit tricky if you are well versed in the old method because the old method honestly was a bit simpler and a bit stupider when it came to your abilities. It was all tied to are you a dwarf? Are you a gnome? Are you a human? You get plus two strength. You get plus one wisdom. That’s it. Boop. The end. Now it’s not tied to that at all. It’s tied to backgrounds. Each background gives you a chance to add one point to three different things or two to one, one to another, but the three different things are different for each background.

They’re very clever. It’s never the three that would work together in the most min-max way. It’s a little complicated in the beginning to do some math. Once you get through that, and of course you get to, it’s very customizable. The flow of the play has been greatly improved. Every single class gets some fun choices to make. For instance, I’m not a rogue, but another character is. Rogues are notoriously boring to play because even for Arcane Tricksters, mostly they hide, jump out, shoot or stab, go back into the shadows. If they get sneak attack, you roll a bunch of dice. Whoop-dee-doo.

One of the things they’ve done is for at least this version of the rogue, you can trade some of those. If you get sneak attack, you can pull some of those dice out and use them to do other things. You’re always facing those interesting choices as you’re playing. A lot of options, so many options, but they don’t seem cumbersome. It’s just smooth and it’s fun. I have not run into one thing yet where I was like, even the things that nerf stuff a little bit, like Divine Smite’s a little nerf now, but who cares? It’s better, honestly. It makes more sense. Let’s put it this way. Having done it, I wouldn’t want to not do it.

John: We’re finishing up a campaign right now, which is using old rules, but next campaign we’re already planning to use 2024.

Craig: I will encourage everybody to dive in. Honestly, you don’t have to read the whole damn book. You just learn your one thing. D&D Beyond is particularly good at teaching you by helping you build your character. Roll20 doesn’t teach you a damn thing when you build your character. It’s a mess.

John: You would recommend people, even if they’re going to play in Roll20, build your character out in D&D Beyond, then just transfer it over.

Craig: Yes, because D&D Beyond is laid out so much better. Every step of the way, you can click on things and it will tell you, this is what this means. This is what this means. This is what this means. You can go back easily and rejigger it easily. It’s so much simpler.

John: One of my previous One Cool Things was this book on sort of role-playing game history. It’s basically starting with D&D, like going up all the way through where we’re at now, but like all these games I’d never heard of. I’ve loved just buying some of these games that I’m sure we’re never going to play. As I’m watching the evolution of the systems and how things fit together and what this game took from this game, it’s just interesting to see a whole form evolve.

Craig: It really has. Hats off to those guys. They did a great job.

John: One of the games I just was reading about was Fiasco if you remember.

Craig: Oh, yes, sure.

John: A few years ago. At the Kelly Marcel episode.

Craig: That’s right. Fiasco. Poor John. [laughs] I don’t even remember what happened. I just remember that we did terrible things.

John: Yes, absolutely. It was a Coen Brothers movie.

Craig: It was a Coen Brothers movie, and you were like Brad Pitt in it.

John: Yes. [laughter] That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro this week is by Guy Fee. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com, along with a sign-up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies, and drinkware, you’ll find them all at Cotton Bureau.

Craig: Oh, drinkware.

John: You can find the show notes with links for all the things we talked about today in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to all our premium subscribers.

Craig: Yes, thank you.

John: You make it possible for us to do this every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net where you get all those back-up episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on gadgets that tell us what our bodies are doing.

Craig: Yes, wearables.

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

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: Thanks, Drew.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Craig, so for the holidays, I got myself an Oura Ring, which you can see I’m wearing right now.

Craig: I see it on you right now.

John: It’s a little black ring. I’ve worn an Apple watch for a long time, which is also keeping track of healthy things. Friends who had Oura Rings liked them, and so I got one, and it’s impressive. It feels like an Apple product that does not come from Apple. It’s smartly done.

Craig: Does it feel like it will rule them all and in the darkness bind them?

John: Maybe.

Craig: Have you thrown it in the fire and looked for the black speech of Mordor?

John: You know what? I haven’t unlocked that aspect of it yet. Maybe that’s a subscription bonusy thing.

Craig: It must be cast back into the fires from whence it came.

John: The reason I got it is I don’t wear my Apple watch to sleep. It’s actually really good at sleep tracking. Last week, it’s like, “Oh, you’re cold. You’re sick.” I’m like, “Oh, yes, I am sick.” Then it actually anticipated.

Craig: Or were you sick?

John: Was I sick? It’s like a somatic force had been there.

Craig: I’ll tell you why I stopped wearing. It was very comfortable. That part I was fine with. I stopped wearing it because what would happen is I would wake up, feel perfectly refreshed, look at my phone. It was like, “Oh-

John: Oh, you slept so poorly.

Craig: -you slept five minutes.” I’m like, what? Then there are times where I’d wake up like, “Oh my God…” It was like, “Great job!” I’m like, either you’re guessing or my brain isn’t working right. Either way, I would get like, oh, I guess I didn’t sleep that much. I don’t want to know. I didn’t want to know. If I’m feeling okay, I slept enough.

John: I was talking to Julie Turner about this last night. It’s that issue of what metrics do you actually want to know and when is it actually helpful for you. Right now, it’s feeling helpful, but there’s other stuff I’ve stopped doing. I was like logging food for a while. It was easy for me to do.

Craig: It’s tedious.

John: I wasn’t getting insightful information out of it. I want to talk about your wearable because you actually have something that you need, which is tracking your glucose.

Craig: Yes, so I wear the FreeStyle Libre from Abbott Pharmaceuticals Corporation. It is a continuous glucose monitor. I don’t have to do the finger sticks. This is for people with type 1 diabetes, but also for people with type 2 diabetes. It’s basically anybody that has any blood sugar issue, it’s very helpful.

I just read that they are now starting to make a version for non-diabetic people to help with weight loss and things like that. One thing that’s amazing about it is it does connect you to what is the impact of the food you eat. Writing down what you ate and then weighing yourself the next day, it’s kind of useless. Could be water, could be poop. Who the hell knows why you weigh what you did that morning?

I’m going to eat something and look at my phone 45 minutes later and go, “Oh, I shouldn’t have eaten that. That’s not working well for me.” It is extraordinarily valuable feedback and I check it all the time. I had a piece of birthday cake. Let’s see how I did. You’ll see it on here. There it is. See it?

John: Oh wow, right up there, yes.

Craig: I had it. This is right when I had it. Now, the good news is, also the arrow is very important.

John: It’s coming down.

Craig: Happily, it’s only in the yellow. It’s not in the red. I try and live my life in the green. Mostly I’m 90. It tells you what your range is. I live 91% in the green, which is amazing.

John: Great.

Craig: The key is that arrow. When you see a high number and the arrow’s straight up, go outside and walk. Walk real hard because there’s problem. If you’re low and the arrow’s pointing down, eat something.

John: How often is it just a surprise to you? At this point, you can just anticipate where you’re at.

Craig: It is rarely a surprise. The only time I get surprised is if I eat something that I haven’t eaten before. With this, I remember the first time I had sushi, I just was like, “It’s just sushi, it’ll be fine.”

John: It’s white rice.

Craig: Oh no, it’s not just white rice. Sushi rice has a lot of sugar in it. There’s something about rice plus the sugar in it that just sends my blood sugar skyrocketing as opposed to say, whole-grain bread. The surprises are only the first time. Day-to-day, I could have told you that was going to happen. That’s not even that bad.

John: My Oura Ring does know if I had a drink. It’s like, “Oh, it sounds like you had a drink.” It does know that you don’t sleep as well when you have a drink.

Craig: I sure don’t and I don’t need an Oura Ring to tell me that. I know I don’t. If I had some trouble sleeping and then I hit Saturday and it’s like, we’re going out to dinner. I’m just like, it would be great to have a drink with people and be social and stuff. I’m not going to because I’m in trouble right now.

John: I’m enjoying the ring for now. I don’t think I necessarily need it for all things. I don’t swim with my Apple Watch, so it’d be useful for that. We’ll see where I’m at down the road on it, but I’m enjoying it.

Craig: It’s a good thing. It just was bumming me out.

John: Don’t stick with things that bum you out.

Craig: No, I want it to be useful. Also, it’s a very after-the-fact thing like, “Oh, you’re having a drink.” Yes, I know, I drank it. “Oh, you didn’t sleep well.” Yes, I know, I’m here. I just woke up and I don’t feel good. It’s like an I told you so ring, which is like not as useful to me as, oh, you shouldn’t eat this next time kind of thing.

John: It does nudge you to go to bed, but I have plenty of other things that are not telling me to go to bed.

Craig: Like the clock.

John: Yes, like the husband.

[laughter]

Craig: The husband, exactly. Is Mike a go-to-bed-early guy?

John: No, actually, I’m generally the person who goes up the stairs first and I’m the person who closes the curtains and turns on the humidifier and puts the dog away.

Craig: Do you need to go to sleep before he goes to sleep?

John: It’s good I do, but it’s not mandatory. Sometimes in D&D nights, I’ll be second, yes.

Craig: You’ll be second.

John: I definitely have a sleep window and if I am not in bed by 11:00, I’m awake again and it’s hard for me to get to sleep.

Craig: I have some windows like that too. Melissa falls asleep so easily and she naps. Sometimes it’s 8:15 and she’s out, and I’m like, “All right, no problem.” We’ve always been on different sleep schedules.

John: Even though we have no kids in the house anymore, we wake up at 7:20 every morning to get Amy off to school and even though she’s not here anymore.

Craig: It’s just the biological clock.

John: Yes. Which is fine. It’s a good time to be up.

Craig: 7:20 is a great time. Listen, having been in production for so long, 7:20 sounds like a luxury. Wake up a lot of times at 5:10.

John: Brutal.

Craig: The worst. Especially when you wake up and it’s dark.

John: In Canada.

Craig: Then you go to bed and it’s dark and then you wake up the next day and it’s dark and you’re like, oh. Going to work in the dark is such a heartbreaker.

John: Not good. Thanks, Craig.

Craig: Thank you.

Links:

  • Weekend Read on the App Store
  • Oscar nominations 2025
  • IVF Mixup movies: Parallel Mothers, Maybe Baby, Good Newwz, Daughter from Another Mother
  • Manhunt
  • The Love Hypothesis by Ali Hazelwood
  • How to like everything more by Sasha Chapin
  • Growing a Human: The First 30 Weeks by Maggie Appleton
  • 2024 Player’s Handbook
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on BlueSky, Threads, Instagram, and Mastodon
  • Outro by Guy Fee (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 672: Navigating Loss with Jesse Eisenberg, Transcript

January 23, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August and you’re listening to episode 672 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, how do we handle loss? Loss of a parent, loss of a relationship, loss of a home? How do we grieve both alone and collectively? To help us explore these questions, we have a very special guest.

Jesse Eisenberg is a writer of plays, short stories and screenplays, who’s also an accomplished actor and director. He’s the writer, director and star of his film A Real Pain. Welcome to Scriptnotes, Jesse Eisenberg.

Jesse Eisenberg: Thank you so much, John. It’s a real privilege to be on the show and to talk to you.

John: Excited to have you here. Congrats on your WGA nomination.

Jesse: Oh, thanks.

John: Yesterday.

Jesse: Thanks a lot.

John: I want to talk to you about your movie, about the writing of it, the journey to making it into a movie. Also, if we can, I’d like to answer two listener questions that we got in.

Jesse: Sure.

John: One about signature styles and simultaneous perspectives. Then we do a bonus segment at the end and I’d love to talk to you about the radio drama as a form. Because it’s weird, Scriptnotes, we’ve been doing this for 12 years, but we’ve never actually talked about the audio drama. You’re actually a person who has written and performed in those. I want to talk to you about that as a thing.

Jesse: Oh, great. Oh, I would love to.

John: Cool. We’re recording this on Thursday afternoon, January 16th. We’ve just gotten word that David Lynch has died today, which is the writer-director behind Blue Velvet, Mulholland Drive, Twin Peaks, which was such an important thing for me. Jesse, did you ever get to work with him? Did you ever get to meet him? Did you ever cross paths with him?

Jesse: No, I’ve never met him and would definitely have not forgotten that experience. No, I just loved him so much. I think I wrote three different college papers on Mulholland Drive because I was recycling them because I love the movie so much.

John: Yes. I never got to meet him either. I think the thing about writer-directors is they just generate their own work. As a screenwriter, it’s hard for me to enter into his orbit. I was just always so impressed by the specificity of his work and that you have some filmmakers whose names become adjectives and Lynchian is just a thing. You can identify it as a signature style. It’s not even just the visuals, but just the way-

Jesse: The feeling.

John: -his worlds feel. Yes.

Jesse: Exactly. Yes.

John: He died at 78, not in the fires, but partially because of the fires. He was evacuated from the Sunset Fire, which was-

Jesse: Oh, is that right?

John: -also affected us. It was headed down our way. Apparently that was part of what set off this last series of things.

Jesse: Oh, I had no idea. Oh my goodness.

John: Emphysema, but when people are in a fragile state and then they have emergency, you’re moving them around.

Jesse: Right. Oh goodness, I didn’t realize.

John: Jesse, I associate you as a New York person. Have you been in Los Angeles much?

Jesse: I’m aware of it. The first times I would go to Los Angeles would be for screen tests for movies. I just developed this horrible Pavlovian anxiety about landing at LAX because I knew I had to go– I was trying to memorize my lines in the car over to some audition. I never got the wonderful LA experience. I shot there and I did a play there actually.

When I’m working there, it’s nice. When I’m not working there, all that old stuff, when I’m there, I have a day off or something, all that old feeling of being out there and, I don’t know, just the anxiety of being out there comes back.

John: Yes. It’s strange that in the States we have these two big cities, big iconic cities. We have many great iconic cities, but the two big ones we think of are New York and Los Angeles. New York though, everyone has a connection to New York. Los Angeles is sort of a place people drop into and out of, but they don’t have that same kind of affinity for.

Jesse: Exactly. Being in the entertainment industry, I always felt like, “Well, if I’m in LA and I’m not working, what am I doing there?” Whereas when I’m not working in New York, it feels like less of a problem because I’m a third generation New Yorker. It just feels like, “Oh, this is where I should be.”

John: This really brought me to this last week in the fire. Watching the national coverage of it, there was good coverage of it. You could see a lot of national interest in it, but it wasn’t the same visceral feeling we had after 9/11, something like that which was so devastating on a national level.

Jesse: Exactly.

John: The attack on 9/11 was an attack on a fundamental piece of America. These fires were more disparate. There wasn’t one center to it.

Jesse: Exactly. I’ve been really eager to talk to people about the fires because I was in LA a few days before. I have so many friends and colleagues there. I know several people that have lost their homes. And in New York, I’m finding it’s more difficult to connect with people about it because it’s really not on their radar as much as I would have expected.

John: Yes. Update from where we are here, as we’re recording this, the fires aren’t out, but they aren’t growing. They feel like they’re largely under control. We have thousands of homes burned, people displaced, and we’re just starting to get a handle on what we’ve lost and what happens next. I and a bunch of other writers donated to the Writers Guild Member Fund, which is through the Entertainment Community Fund, which is helping out people in the industry affected by this.

Obviously at Scriptnotes and individually, we’re going to be doing a lot of donations and fundraising for folks impacted by these fires and the work of rebuilding the city and the parts that were lost. So we’ll have a link in the show notes to resources for writers from the WGA for if you’ve been impacted, places to go first to look for some help here.

Let’s get to talking about you and what you’ve been working on. It’s just so fascinating, this intersection between you as a writer and you as an actor. I want to talk about where things started because looking back through your history, it feels like you were doing both things at the same time. You were never an actor who then decided they wanted to write or a writer who then got put into some things. They were simultaneous interests for you. That started as a kid, I’m guessing.

Jesse: Yes, exactly. I would always write. I started just writing jokes and then I would be writing scenes. When I was 16 years old, I wrote a movie about Woody Allen. That was like a young version of Woody Allen in modern society, but it was about him changing his name to Woody Allen from his real name. I got a cease-and-desist letter from his lawyers once they finally got the script.

John: I want to put you on pause there. Once they finally got the script, so that means that you hustled your way into getting him to read this script.

Jesse: Exactly. Yes, exactly. Because I wanted to film it on a little camera. I was just trying to do all things at all times. As you know or maybe you don’t know because you’re a very successful screenwriter, but as an actor, you always feel like you’re one job away from never working again. I felt that way even when I was 17 and auditioning for things. I always felt like, “This all feels like you have to win the lottery to get a part in something.” I was just doing anything I could in the arts, which included just writing scripts in high school and trying to send them to anybody who might read them.

Then I started getting parts in movies when I was 18, 19, 20. I started getting good parts in movies that people actually saw. That helped me, because I got an agent, that helped me to get my screenplays that I was writing. I was writing commercial style screenplays. That helped me have an agent to get them into company’s hands. Some of them got optioned by like Depth of Field, which is the Weitz Brothers company.

I was 20, 21, and I would rewrite these scripts. I had like three or four of them at the time. I’d rewrite these scripts. I never got paid for an option. It was always just like they were at these companies. I’m not complaining, nor I should not have been paid for these, but I just mean it was not like I was a success. It was basically some companies had taken these scripts and agreed to talk with this nice kid for once every six months. That was the thing. At some point I realized these are never going to get made.

John: I want to unpack a few things there. You were talking about the difference between an actor and a writer. The writer can just go off and write a new script. You have an agency as a writer that you don’t have as an actor, because as an actor, you’re asking somebody to put you in their thing. “Let me be a part of your thing,” versus like, “Let me create the thing behind it.”

Jesse: Exactly.

John: And yet as an actor, you have a lot more access to different filmmakers and different styles of doing things. Because by the time you were 20, 21, 22, you’d been on a bunch of sets. You’d seen how a bunch of different people worked. You were also reading a ton of scripts. That’s a great education.

Jesse: It’s unbelievable. I don’t think I would be able to direct a movie had I not been on so many sets as an actor. I’m on sets as an actor, but really, as you know from being on these sets, you spend the day just watching things happen. If you’re a curious person, which I’m a curious person, you can ask the people and usually people are happy to tell you about their jobs and why they’re doing what they’re doing and why the dolly should go this way and not the other way. That was really helpful.

It also helped me as a writer too, because I’d been in so many– on the micro level, I’d been in scenes that just don’t work. You’re like, “Why does this scene not work? Why is it not playable?” is the word we would use as an actor. “This scene is not playable. My character says this thing and then two lines later says this thing and it makes no sense. There’s no psychological jump.” And so as a writer, I just don’t do that stuff. That’s not the difference between a good movie and a bad movie, really. It’s just the thing that actors like to do versus what actors don’t like to do. So that was really helpful.

Then just because I’m writing things that are character based generally, it’s like, I feel like I have a good sense of what actors like to do, because that’s always the thing I come into conflict with. I just did this movie, we just finished, it was Now You See Me 3. It’s this big Hollywood thing. It’s an ensemble movie, there’s eight characters in it. But I really do have to say my character has a consistent voice from beginning to end. It’s just great. I love doing it. Even though the movie looks like maybe this movie that wouldn’t be emphasizing character stuff too much. For me, my character has a distinct voice from beginning to end and I just love doing it. It could happen in any level of movie.

John: Let’s go back to those first scripts you were writing, the ones that the Weitz Brothers were not paying you for, but to sort of bring in. What is the first screenplay you remember reading? The thing that made you think like, “Oh, this is actually a form I understand. This is a form I want to work in.” Do you remember?

Jesse: Oh, wow. God, that’s a great question. Yes. God, it must have been something. When I was younger, I was auditioning for things, but I couldn’t tell you the difference between a good thing and a bad thing.

John: Yes, and often you’re probably seeing sides, you’re seeing the pieces of a thing rather than the full-

Jesse: Exactly.

John: -work.

Jesse: I auditioned for the movie The Squid and the Whale when I was like I think 19, I ended up filming it when I was 21 because they got on hold for two years because of budget whatever, but I definitely remember thinking, “This is amazing.” It was amazing. It’s funny and emotional in a way that just felt original and that tone just seemed really cool.

John: And The Squid and the Whale, it’s a spare script. It’s not a play, but it’s not a big cinematic. There aren’t car chases. It’s not the camera doing wild things. It’s just characters in a situation creating their own issues.

Jesse: Right, so it’s easier to read. It’s harder to read a big action thing and understand actually what it’s going to look like and be, because there are just so many moving parts that are not able to be explicit in a script. But for a movie like Squid and the Whale, or the first movie I got to do, Roger Dodger, they were great scripts, the dialogue was great, and you could see on the page that the thing was going to be great. It didn’t require directorial or technical flourishes that you couldn’t see on the page.

John: Yes, but the first script I read was Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape. It was one of the first things that was printed that we had to buy at a bookstore and read.

Jesse: Oh, wow.

John: It was just the realization like, “Oh, everything that’s happening in the movie that I’m watching on the VHS copy, it’s just reflected here.” Realizing that there’s a standard format that makes sense for explaining what’s going to happen in this movie, just on the page.

Jesse: And it was a good read?

John: It was a great read.

Jesse: It was accessible read, right.

John: A hundred percent. Again, it’s spare because it didn’t need a lot of flourishes, but just the sense of like, “Oh, this is how we’re going to introduce a character on the page,” which is not necessarily going to match exactly what you’re going to see on screen. It tracks well. You can hear characters’ voices being distinct even before those actors are being cast in them. That’s a crucial thing.

Jesse: Do you find that there are a lot of movies that just don’t read well, but you know are going to be great?

John: There are. Some of the cases I’ve run into are directors who’ve written things, they have a vision for what it is, but they just can’t get it on the page very well. I know this filmmaker’s going to be able to make something great, it’s just not there yet. I’ve worked a lot at the Sundance Screenwriters Lab, and sometimes you have these filmmakers coming in who are working on, generally, their second movie, and so the first one they just made, and the second one, they really are trying to put it all together. Sometimes they’re struggling with the form, but you know they have a great vision there.

Jesse: You know that because they’ve made that other movie or just from talking to them?

John: They’ve made another movie or in the conversation with them, you see what it is that they’re trying to do and they’re just not quite able to find the-

Jesse: Translate that?

John: Yes, they’re not able to evoke that on the page for what they’re going to try to get to at the end of it all.

Jesse: Right.

John: There are definitely times where I’ve read scripts that I thought, “That is just a really tough read,” and yet, in talking with a filmmaker, you see like, “Oh, yes, they have a vision. They’re going to be able to make something really cool out of that.” My job as an advisor is just to be– I describe it as like, “I’m your friend with a pickup truck who’s going to help you move from where you are to where you need to be. I’m not going to change anything, I’m just going to help you get there.”

Jesse: That’s a nice way to think about it. The alternative thing is scripts that read really well that don’t make good movies, and I’ve been able to figure out what those are too.

John: Tell me.

Jesse: Well you know, it’s the kind of script that has really flashy dialogue, funny dialogue and things that are like– What I find most of the movies that I’m thinking about that are fun to read, but I know they’re not going to make good movies, are ones that are really quirky, where the quirk factor is turned up, where people have odd names and everything. Stuff that is funny to look at, but doesn’t translate to when you’re watching human beings take on those things, and now you have to follow them. I’m not just saying you have to relate to everybody, but just things where they’re really cutesy and quirky on the page. Usually, those things are just not translating to 3D imagery.

John: Also, I think what you’re describing is sometimes things could be like, “Okay, that little moment was funny, but it’s not the kind of funny that’s going to continue out through two hours of a movie experience.” The difference between sketch writing and longer form writing is the ability to really go on a journey with these characters and want to see them as it continues.

Jesse: Yes, and not be too funny. Sometimes scripts are too funny, and you’re like, “Yes, I get it, this is really funny, but you’re constantly undermining the gravity of the emotions of the characters.” It’s a good sketch, but you can’t actually engage with these characters in an emotional way.

John: Speaking of sketch, you’ve hosted Saturday Night Live.

Jesse: Oh, yes.

John: What was that experience like? As a person who’s usually going in with full preparation, usually you get a chance to really think everything through, and suddenly you’re in sketches. Did you enjoy it? What was that like for you?

Jesse: Oh, it was terrible. I’m an idiot. It’s my fault entirely. What happened was, when I was 18 and I got an agent and everything, I had put together a packet for Saturday Night Live to write. I’d written tons of sketches. I loved that format. Even as an adult, I could look back and say, “Yes, they were good sketches.” It wasn’t like a teenager writing. It was like somebody who had a voice and whatever, and the concepts were funny and varied.

When they asked me to host the thing, I didn’t want to because I only wanted to write for the thing and I didn’t want to be an actor coming in. They put the wig on an actor and parade you around. I wanted to be a writer. I spoke to somebody there before and they said, “Yes, no, you can do that. Yes, that’s fine. You can bring your scripts in. That’d be great.” I didn’t realize that they were just being nice to me. That was not the way it works. There are writers there, they all come from the Harvard Lampoon, and they are competing with each other to get sketches on, and the celebrity actor that comes in, because they’re in a popular movie that week, doesn’t get to write the things.

But I didn’t know that, and so I spent the week trying to have my scripts infiltrate the planned sketches. There was a table read, and I think I did like two sketches at the table read, and I could tell increasingly over the course of the week, people were not happy with me. But I didn’t realize, and I was just so desperate to be a writer. If I went back on the show, I wouldn’t do that again, and I was an idiot, and I guess I must have come off really obnoxious or something. I was just so eager to write comedy since I’m young, and that felt like an opportunity for me to do it.

John: Let’s take it back to the 20-year-old Jesse Eisenberg. If I were to sit you down for an interview then, and say, “Jesse Eisenberg, what do you want to do with your life? What is your goal?” What would you have identified as your aims? What were you shooting for?

Jesse: Oh, The Onion. I would have just wanted to write for The Onion. To me, it’s the greatest thing in the world. During the pandemic, they allowed me to do six weeks on a probationary period. I did not make it past the six weeks, but I had great stuff and I just wouldn’t get it voted in at the end. I was also not one of the core writers. I was on this probationary thing. My headlines and stuff would not be prioritized. That to me still feels like the whale.

John: Oh yes.

Jesse: To me, it’s the greatest comedy writing in the world. I aspire to it and feel shamed that I didn’t get in there.

John: Yes, so instead you’re just making movies and starring in things.

Jesse: To me it’s so much easier, like the head writer from The Onion saw the movie A Real Pain and he complimented me on it and I immediately sent him back a headline because I was so desperate to just have something in The Onion. To me, if I had a non-byline Onion headline, no one knows it’s me, and it came out in one of 100 headlines that week, it’d make me happier than any movie script.

John: Incredible. I want to talk to you about your movie, A Real Pain, because this is your second feature as a director. For folks who haven’t seen it yet, I’m going to give the shortest logline, but then I want to talk to you about what the movie’s really about. It follows two cousins, David and Benji, who are on a group tour in Poland to visit important Jewish cultural sites, including a concentration camp, and to learn more about where their grandmother grew up. That’s sort of the logline version. Was that the actual movie you set out to write? What was the actual intention behind sitting down and starting to write this movie?

Jesse: Yes, thank you so much for saying that in your question, which is the first time I ever was asked it in that way, is quite spot on. Because the log line was the vehicle. The log line was the way to get them– what is the actual screenwriting term? MacGuffin? Is that the thing? What is the thing?

John: Sure. Well, MacGuffin would be sort of like a plot device. It’s just like the mechanic. Yes.

Jesse: Exactly, yes. My background as a writer, after sketch stuff didn’t work out, my background was playwriting. I’ve had four plays in New York, one of them transferred to the West End, and some play in other places. I had written one character in a play, it was named David, the play took place in Poland, the play was called Revisionist. It’s similar to my character David, who I play in this movie. My third play, which is my best play, was called The Spoils, and I played a character named Ben, who is this charming, maladaptive guy, like Kieran’s character in A Real Pain.

Then I had written a short story for a tablet magazine where I took those two characters from the two separate plays, and I put them in the same room as childhood friends who go to Mongolia. These two characters that are pretty similar to the characters in this movie. Then I thought I would adapt that to a movie. I was adapting the Mongolia script and I thought it’d be cool to shoot in Mongolia and I’d never seen it before in a movie, et cetera. It was just not going well. I didn’t have a second act. It’s okay to talk in jargon, right?

John: Oh yes, a hundred percent. Jargon is very much welcome here.

Jesse: Okay, great. Basically, I had this amazing setup of these two guys who were childhood friends and they had all this funny, fraught history together and then they got to Mongolia and this big thing happened there. The problem is it happened the first day they get there so there was no second act. Basically, it was a first act and then it jumped to this big, tragic reconciliation of their past. I didn’t have a second act.

I was sitting there, I was so frustrated because I knew there was potential with these two characters. I loved them so much and I loved their banter. I knew there was potential in a road trip of these guys. I was banging my head against the computer when an ad popped up for Auschwitz Tours, and then in parentheses, with lunch. Auschwitz Tours (with lunch). I clicked on the ad, even though I already knew what it was, which is that, it takes you to a site for advertising English speaking tours of Holocaust sites. I thought, “That’s the movie.” That gave me the vehicle.

I can set these two guys who both have their own internal pain against the backdrop of objective, horrifying pain. Suddenly I could just implicitly make this bigger commentary on what pain is valid? Is my OCD character’s pain valid? Is Kieran’s pain, who has much darker demons than my character’s pain valid? Or are we just individual grains of irrelevant sand on the beach of Polish trauma, in Holocaust history? Once I came up with this Holocaust tour, it just seemed like this is a great vehicle to have a movie with these two characters.

John: The choice to make them cousins makes a lot more sense now that you talked through the history of this. Originally they were best friends, but that really wouldn’t make sense for why they’re going on this tour together. If they were siblings, you’re dealing with all the sibling stuff of it all. Cousins is the in between place.

Jesse: Exactly. Originally when I thought about the Holocaust tour, I thought they have to be family. I thought they’d be siblings. Then I realized, no, it’d be so much more interesting to make them cousins who just lost a grandma because what that would do is allow them to basically not have a relationship anymore.

If you’re siblings, you’re always connected by your parents. There’s just expectations that you should always be in each other’s lives. Cousins who lose a grandparent, which is their only link, really have to make a decision in some ways, unconscious, implicit decision on if they’re going to remain really close. That’s what’s going on with these characters in this movie.

John: Jesse, as you sat down to start writing this script, did that you were going to star in it? Did that you were going to direct it? Was that always an intention from when you started writing the script?

Jesse: No, not really. I write all the time. This was just the next thing I was writing. I wasn’t exactly thinking that I would act in it. I guess I wanted to direct it because I want to direct because I feel like the film industry is so fickle with actors that I feel like I need to have some control. I don’t have your skill set to write the way you do these really big, wonderful movies. I can write my small personal things. And if I direct them, it gives me a little more agency in this industry that I find is really unstable. I thought, “Okay, I could direct this. This could be something. It’s a character driven movie. It doesn’t require a technical mastery.” Then in terms of acting in it, I didn’t really think about it.

John: Because it sounds like you’ve actually played both characters.

Jesse: Yes. I did. I did play both of those characters. I always think of my acting as quite separate, in terms of movies, because I’m in other movies and other people’s movies. I wasn’t exactly thinking of being in it. The weird thing happens, and God, you could probably relate to this in a roundabout or maybe the other side way, which is that, when I send people a script, it’s just much easier to get something made that has an actor attached to it, even if it’s an actor they don’t really like. Even if producers don’t really like me, just the fact that an actor seems to have, theoretically– you’re at a higher level in this, but at my level, with writing, there’s an actor engaged on a $3 million movie, it already seems like it’s possibly real.

John: No, Jesse, I assure you that at my level, and it’s sort of at every level, having an actor attached to something is really helpful. I think it anchors in people’s minds like, “Oh, I can picture the movie, I can sort of picture Oscar Isaac in that thing.” It just makes life easier if there’s somebody attached.

Jesse: Exactly. And it also seems like validated by a non-writer, that seems helpful too. “Okay, this is not just a literary thing. This is validated by somebody attractive.” Once I started sending it out to financiers, independent investors, whatever, I just put my name on it, basically just as a shorthand that it’s going to hopefully be made soon.

John: As folks started to read this, they were reading this as like, “Okay, this is something that Jesse wrote, he’s going to be starring and directing in it.” They’ve seen that you can direct a movie. They know you as an actor. It must make it easier because there’s a sense of like, “Oh, I get what this is and it’s not going to be a crazy expensive movie.” What was the process of going out and finding the money? Was it all independent investors? Did you have a plan? Because you ended up selling it at, was it Sundance or where did you sell it?

Jesse: We sold it at Sundance. Yes. No, it was really hard. Really hard. We were passed up by everybody in the first round of who we went to. It was ultimately produced by this great company, Topic. They’re certainly not a second-round company, but the people we had gone to for a higher budget essentially, all passed on it. A24, who did my first movie, didn’t do this one.

It did feel a little bit like a really uphill battle to the point where I was writing to German reparations funds who give some money to Holocaust themed movies. I was able to get a little grant from them that I thought could be seed money to make this. I didn’t know how I was going to fund it. I know that must seem strange to maybe some listeners who know me as like a Hollywood actor and it seems like, “Well, why don’t we just go make it?” The way these independent movies are made, it’s difficult. A lot of people want to make movies at this level. It’s competitive.

John: Yes. You were able to find producers and financiers. How early on in the process did you list some sort of line producer, somebody who could come up with a budget, come up with a schedule? How early did like how expensive it was to make the movie?

Jesse: Oh God, that’s a great question. Pretty early we did that because, okay, so I should also say, because I don’t want to seem like I’m asking for pity that it was a real struggle. It was a real struggle to find investors, but my producers are great. They’re Emma Stone’s company called Fruit Tree. It’s Em, her husband Dave McCary and their partner, Ali Herting. They were great. When we were looking for actual investors, that was the struggle.

We had a budget done, I think pretty early, but it was a bit amorphous because the budget is partly dependent on getting money from the Polish Film Institute and you don’t know if you’re going to get it. In our case, actually, we lost, I think it was like– we were a three and a half million-dollar movie. I think we lost $850,000 two months before because we were expecting it from the PFI. Then for a set of technical reasons, we didn’t get it. We thought it would cost five and a half. We ended up having to make it for three and a half, which meant cutting out days, which meant cutting locations. It was scrappy. It was quick. Every day felt like something would go wrong.

John: Yes. That’s really challenging. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the screenplay that’s being published, the For Your Consideration script. How close is the script that we’ll be seeing to what you went into production with? Because it’s always hard to tell with For Your Consideration scripts, how much they’re just conforming to the final movie versus what the original shooting script was. What changed?

Jesse: Oh, wow. What a nice question. I haven’t even thought about this stuff. We cut two scenes from the movie, which are not reflected in the For Your Consideration script. We cut the two scenes. Otherwise, maybe it’s word for word. It’s that close. The two scenes, one of the scenes, I put in at the very last minute. It was a scenelet. The big scene we cut was just the beginning of the movie. You see my character at home with his wife and kid. The actress was great, Ellora Torchia, she’s a brilliant British actress. She played my wife. My child played my child. Wasn’t happy to be cut out. The scene felt too formulaic and just standard issue for the pace of the rest of the movie.

John: Absolutely. The way you’re starting now makes a lot of sense because we see we’re in New York, we know we’re headed to the airport. I suspect what you found in the edit was that seeing the wife and family made you want to see them more over the course of it. That really wasn’t the movie you were making.

Jesse: Exactly. It was not helpful. Actually, you just want to– God, you probably know this better than anybody. Audiences pick up on shortcuts to characterizations really quickly. You see me in a taxi cab now in the beginning and I’m calling my cousin. It’s a funny little scene, but it just says everything you want to know about who I am, who that character is, the cousin who I’m calling. It’s a funnier scene and it’s more original. Audiences are so aware, they just know, “Oh, that’s this person. Let’s see how this person unfolds now.”

John: Yes. I want to talk about a showcase scene in the script right now. It’s eight pages long. It’s pages 64 to 72, which is the restaurant scene. This is where we’re at a restaurant, Benji’s being very prickly. He leaves the table. David apologizes for him, explains what sounds like bipolar disorder.

Two of your lines here, basically, “I know he’s in pain, but isn’t everybody in pain in some way? I know my pain is unexceptional, so I don’t feel the need to burden everybody with it.” Sort of central thesis that you’re getting out there.

Jesse: Right.

John: It’s also the revelation to this group that Benji had attempted suicide six months ago, which is new information for us as the audience. Can you talk about the writing of that scene? Did you always know it was going to be a turning point in the movie that would be a showcase scene? What were your feelings going into it, not just as a writer, but also then as the actor and the director?

Jesse: I hope it’s okay to admit this, but I didn’t have that line in the first draft that Benji tried to commit suicide. There were little droppings within the movie that indicated that this guy’s pain was far more, was darker than mine. My instinct was to not put something so explicitly detailed like that. The reason I put it in, again, I hope it’s okay to talk about this stuff, because it’s inside baseball-y a little bit. But the first movie I made wasn’t received that well.

I think the reason it wasn’t received that well is because I assumed that the audience would totally understand how I felt as a director about my characters, and they didn’t. They thought I maybe had contempt for them, and I didn’t. I was in love with them, but they were not being their best selves in the movie. It was really hard to read harsh criticism of the other movie. For this, I just wanted to make sure the audience understood what was happening and that, yes, you could imply in 10,000 different ways and looks and lies of omission and all this stuff, indicate that that character may have done something like that or tried to hurt himself or kill himself, but I needed to be more specific.

John: Yes, because we’re seeing this as an audience. We’re approaching it only with the information that we’re seeing on screen. You as the writer or director you know the facts. You know things that we’re not necessarily able to see.

Jesse: Exactly.

John: We don’t know whether this is typical behavior for Benji or atypical. Is he always just an asshole? What’s going on in this moment? What I like about the revelation where you put it is that it re-contextualizes the scenes that we’ve been thinking about beforehand. The same way that we as an audience are doing that, the other people around the table are like, “Oh, okay, the stuff we saw before…” It actually does provide just really good dramatic fodder for figuring out what happens next. It makes us appreciate both you and Benji differently for now knowing this information.

Jesse: The scene used to end– the kicker at the end of that monologue was not this revelation that Benji tried to kill himself, but the kicker in the– kicker is such a sleazy word to use for something emotional. The great ending prior to that, it was that our grandparents survived by a thousand miracles to get us here. The ending of the monologue was, “And I know we were born on third base. I know I was born on third base and I feel so lucky, but it feels like Benji is just constantly trying to run back to second.” That was the ending line. It was this guy who had everything and was trying to make his life so much worse.

John: Yes, and that’s such a great line. It’s not supported by the scene that’s there beforehand. I can understand why it changed, but it’s such a great sentiment. I want to drill into this aspect of it because what’s interesting about your movie is that it’s hard to make a dramatic comedy, comedy drama, something that walks that line. It also goes to the fact that this movie has to become quiet at moments.

It has to let the concentration camp be what it is and then find a context for it. Because you’re talking about the loss of a grandparent and your own personal pain in this environment of just unspeakable, catastrophic, unfathomable loss. And trying to hold the balance of that. And the shame you feel of feeling bad when others have it so much worse around you.

Jesse: Right, exactly.

John: Talk to me about the rest of the people in that group and how you thought about those characters and the tour guide, Will, and how you thought about putting together the rest of the folks who are going to be surrounding them.

Jesse: In a macro way, after I read up a lot on what these Holocaust tours mostly are, they’re mostly suburban, middle, upper-middle class Jews who are doing their responsible trip. Instead of going to Rome this year, they go to this place. It’s very well-intentioned. I don’t mean to sound flippant about them. No, it’s wonderful that they’re doing that and exploring that history. Basically, I knew I couldn’t have 15 people on the tour that were all basically my parents. It would just be monotonous. I was trying to think of who could be on this tour, realistically, that is just a little more interesting than probably what most of these tours offer.

For me, that meant, I wrote a character based on my friend, Eloge. I met this guy named Eloge in real life. He survived the Rwanda genocide, converted to Judaism. If you look up his name, the first video that comes up is him talking about going on an Auschwitz tour. He’s my most religious Jewish friend. I asked him, “I think you’d be a really interesting character.” I told him what I was writing. I said, “Would you mind if I used your life story in this?” Not only did he agree to it, but helped me with casting and wardrobe. It was wonderful. That was interesting.

I had a neighbor, Martha. She’s the basis of Jennifer Grey’s character, Marcia. She was divorced and she was curious about her roots in Hungary. I just put the story together in my head of how interesting it must be to be going through a divorce and trying to find grounding in your own family’s history, even if that means Holocaust history. That was a character.

Then in terms of the tour guide, I thought it’d be interesting to have a character that is– there’s a term that Jews use called a philo-Semitic. Anti-Semitic is a hatred of Jews. Philo is of course a lover of Jews, but it’s a weird– the word is not used exactly. It’s kind of derogatory. It’s basically used to describe somebody who fetishizes Jewish culture. Like, “You guys are so, and I love the food,” that kind of thing. I thought it’d be really interesting to have a character as a tour guide who is an academic so that he can represent just the cold facts of the tour because I wanted somebody–

Basically, I was just trying to create people that Benji could play off of, that Kieran’s character could play off of. I knew if I had this guy that was overly academic and intellectualizing this tragic history, I knew it would just create some tension for Kieran. As I was writing it just proved to be true because once they got to the cemetery and they’re looking at this oldest Jewish cemetery, Kieran just goes nuts on him.

John: Yes, so you’ve assembled sort of this group of folks who are traveling through this place. At this point, you’ve cast Kieran. How much time did you have to figure out the relationship between you two guys? Because I can imagine if you weren’t also the writer-director, you were just the two actors, you might find some time to get together and figure out what your dynamic was. How much time did you have to spend with him to figure out how to play things? What was the process of working with him?

Jesse: Insane. I had no time with him and that’s more having to do with Kieran than it is anything else. Kieran is the most unusual person. Every writer listening to this, hire him in your movie, but don’t expect to have any conversation with him. Don’t expect him to know what scenes you’re shooting during the day. Not only is he the main character in this movie, he’s the focus of every scene in this movie.

First of all, he showed up to Poland a day before we shot. He didn’t want to talk about it with me on the phone ever. We did a 15-minute rehearsal. Basically, he showed up to Poland the day before we shot and I had a three-hour rehearsal planned. It was the scene where he calls up all these characters to this monument to take pictures and he just bringing the group out of the shell.

I thought we’d had a three-hour rehearsal. Kieran, he was late to rehearsal. I’m criticizing him only because I’m about to compliment him. He came to the rehearsal and he didn’t know what scene we were rehearsing and he didn’t know any of his lines. He said, “Can I look at the script for a second?” I showed him the script. He looked at it for 30 seconds and then was word perfect and did the scene once so perfectly that I said, “Let’s not rehearse any more. Let’s just shoot it.”

Then he would come to set during the days and I would say like, “Hey, are you okay?” He’s like, “Eh, I’m okay.” He said, “What scene are we doing today?” I would say, “It’s the scene you have five pages of dialogue on a train and it’s moving quickly.” He goes, “Oh, I remember reading that scene. That was funny. Can I take a look at the script?” I would say, “You don’t have your script?” He’s like, “Oh no, I don’t know if I brought it.” I give him my script. I’m sitting there panicking that this guy doesn’t know his dialogue and we have eight hours to shoot on this train scene. Again, he looks at the pages for like a minute and he’s word perfect and brilliant.

He’s just the most unpretentious actor but he’s doing all of the work. He’s just not doing it in a way that’s performative. We found out from his hotel towards the end of the movie that he had been sleeping on the floor and his room was a mess. His mattress was on his floor and he was living– I don’t know if he was eating at night. He was living like Benji, the character in the movie. He was just not telling anybody about it. I contrast that to the actor that comes to set every morning and says, “God, I was just going over the pages last night and it just reminded me of Lear.” This bullshit pretense that adds nothing to the movie but just makes you realize that this person is doing their work or whatever. Kieran’s the exact opposite. I would love to work with him again and again but he doesn’t make the director comfortable or the writer comfortable.

John: I want to talk a little bit about directors here because a thing that I was thinking through this morning as I was getting ready for this is there’s some actor directors who’ve directed themselves incredibly well. I was thinking like Bradley Cooper directed himself great in A Star is Born. Lena Dunham did a great job directing herself in Girls. Yet there’s other, I won’t name names of the people who didn’t do a great job, but people who are really good actors who are good directors who don’t direct themselves well. How did you make sure that your performance is working as an actor when you’re also worrying about everything else as a director? What are the challenges there? Do you have any hints or tips?

Jesse: Yes, I guess from the outset, because I’ve been writing so long, it was not like I was an actor trying to make a vanity project for myself where I was putting so much emphasis on my performance because I had written it for me to show the audiences that, “Hey, I can do this dark thing. Look, I can play homeless.” That was not my intention with the script.

I’ve been writing for myself for years. I’ve been in my plays and I don’t know who or what you’re referring to when you say it doesn’t work, but my sense is that probably those are intended as not vanity pieces, but trying to show something that they’re not often cast in and those things just go wrong for the reasons because the initial intention is off there.

For me, I just didn’t have that and I’m sitting at the library writing the scripts and I’m crying when I’m writing because I’m feeling all the emotions and then I’m on set, it’s an extension of that. So it’s coming from a real place. I’m probably an unusual writer, actor, in that I’ve started out doing plays and stuff and so I just never think of the extravagance of a movie being something important for me to act in. Yes, maybe that helps.

John: We have two listener questions that I thought we could take a crack at together here. Drew, can you help us out with a question from Tate?

Drew Marquardt: Tate writes, “I’ve written about seven scripts now and I found that a specific central theme always seems to wriggle its way into my stories. The characters, the narratives, the settings, they all vastly differ, but this one thematic question can’t help but rear its head. Is this a problem? Where do you draw the line between crutch and signature when it comes to a screenwriter’s overall work? At what point does something shift from being a unique, constant quality of a writer’s work to a laziness that the writer continues to rely on?”

Jesse: I’m expected to answer this?

John: Together we can answer it.

Jesse: Okay, great, because like, gosh, I couldn’t possibly. Yes, no, please.

John: It strikes me that we’re trying to answer this question on the day that David Lynch died and David Lynch had very common things that kept appearing in his stuff. They felt like of a consistent piece and so I wonder whether Tate is just actually recognizing what their style is and what interests them. I think if you look at a lot of my movies, generally it’s about a person crossing from one world into another world, having to learn the rules of it and survive within it and get back out at the end.

Go is that movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is that movie. A lot of my movies have those same themes in them, but they’re all very different where sometimes people become a crutch and they say that they’re a hack, they’re basically doing the same scene again, movie after movie, they have one way to go to. Jesse, talking about the plays you’ve written, the two movies you’ve made, they’re consistent and of a piece, wouldn’t you say?

Jesse: Yes, they’re all based on my preoccupation of why do I have a good life when other people have a bad life? All my plays are exactly that theme. My first movie is that, it’s about a woman who works at a domestic violence shelter and resents her son because she’s raised an upper middle-class son, and so she tries to parent this kid at a shelter.

The thing you said though, you used the word interest, that seems great. You’re finding the things that you’re interested in. Well, that’s great. That’s really great, and you could repeat forever and ever, because if you’re interested in them, maybe it feels like maybe perhaps you haven’t found the solution. When you don’t have a solution for something, that’s always the best thing to write about because it has an unanswerable tension.

John: I fully agree. Tate, I think just as you’re looking through the seven scripts you’ve written now, which is great, you’ve written seven scripts, you have a sense of what it is that you like to do, those are things you’re writing for yourself. Down the road, if you’re going to be a writer who’s working for other people, you may be writing stuff that’s not that. You may be using your skills at putting scenes and words together to do a very different thing, and that may be a great opportunity for you. The same way that Jesse gets to act in movies that are not his movies, and he gets to play different people too. It’s not a problem that the stuff you’re writing for yourself is of a piece, it’s you.

Jesse: Yes, it means you have a voice. To me, it sounds actually great. When I read writers and you can recognize that it’s theirs, it’s wonderful.

John: Drew, next question.

Drew: Victoria writes, “One of the things I struggle with most is handling sequences where I’m relying on multiple perspectives to move the action forward. The problem isn’t one of plot or emotional outcomes. I know story-wise and emotionally where the characters will be, but more of rhythm and fragmentation. It’s a filmic problem. At this point, I’m almost ready to start using storyboards and diagrams to augment my process. How do you guys make directorial choices for sequences like these? Should I think in terms of shot coverage, where I outline each character’s full action in the timeframe of the scene, and then edit them together? Is there another good way to look at this? Do you have any specific directorial techniques you use when writing these action sequences?”

John: Whether it’s an action sequence or any time we were moving between two different things in a movie, that’s one of the great wonders of cinema, is we can cut between two different things. It’s how do you make it that feel like every time you’re cutting back and forth between them, you’re gaining energy that you’re actually moving the story forward in a way that it all fits well together. It’s just honestly so different than what you do in a play. A play is a continuous space and time, generally, and this is so different. Jesse, what’s been your experience? Because I would say that I can’t think of moments in A Real Pain where you’ve had to sort of intercut between two different things that much.

Jesse: Yes, to me, I couldn’t even imagine doing that. I’m so impressed by this questioner’s ambitions. I was just thinking, “oh wow, yes, notecard sounds like a great idea.” I’m the last person that should be asked about this. I just finished acting in this movie, Now You See Me 3, and to me, the writers are great. It’s like, to me, they built the Empire State Building. I have no idea how they put this thing together. They’re accounting for an ensemble, they’re accounting for tricks, they’re accounting for studio notes from a big studio. To me, it’s like they built a building. It’s that far afield from the thing I know about.

John: Yes, and so, listen, I think, Victoria, if you’re writing stuff that involves intercutting between that stuff, reading a bunch of scripts that do it is going to be a real help to you. Look through the For Your Consideration scripts. We have them all up on Weekend Read. Just read the scripts of the movies that you like that do it and see what that looks like on the page, and you’ll get a sense of it.

The most challenging script I had for intercutting was probably the first Charlie’s Angels, actually, in which you have the three different angels in different parts of this castle. You have your villain, you have all this stuff that’s happening and all is fitting together, and that had to work on the page before we started shooting it. What I wrote is very much the cut that there, and it’s making sure that every time you’re moving from one thing to the next thing, you’re remembering where it was there, but also you’re getting energy out of that cut. It’s a skill to learn. If it’s something that you like writing that kind of stuff, it can be really exciting.

All right, it’s time for our one cool things. My one cool thing is this little website, gamey kind of thing called Network of Time. It’s networkoftime.com if you want to go there, it’s free. It’s basically doing six degrees of separation between two famous figures. You put a person on the left, a person on the right, and it figures out like, okay, how are they connected through what other people are they connected? Not just the names, it actually connects them through photos. It shows you the photos that put all those people together.

I’m going to go to Network of Time here, because I think you are a person in here. I’m going to try Jesse Eisenberg. What other famous person should I put you into? It could be any historical figure as long as they lived in some time of photography. Anybody post-Abraham Lincoln.

Jesse: Shakira?

John: Shakira, a hundred percent. I suspect Shakira will be a link through some other actor or a talk show host. Let’s see, because you’ve probably been on the same talk shows.

Jesse: Oh, got it. Okay, so that’s an easy one.

John: It’s loading up now.

Jesse: Oh, wow, you’re right.

John: Talk show. Four photos. All right, so the connections are Jimmy Fallon. You’re both on Jimmy Fallon’s talk show. There’s a photo of here with Fran Lebowitz, all right? Jimmy Fallon, then Donald Trump, Jimmy Fallon and Donald Trump, then Donald Trump and Jennifer Lopez, then Jennifer Lopez and Shakira.

Jesse: Oh, this is amazing. Oh my God. This is amazing.

John: Before we started recording, I did one to figure out how many steps between you and Abraham Lincoln. For Abraham Lincoln, it goes to Jimmy Fallon, Paul McCartney, Queen Elizabeth, George V, Woodrow Wilson, William Howard Taft, Robert Lincoln, was Lincoln’s son, and then Abraham Lincoln.

Jesse: Got it. Oh, I see, that’s interesting. I could see this website is Jimmy Fallon and probably the British royalty are doing a lot of heavy lifting.

John: They are doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes, presidents do a lot there. What’s weird about it is it has a limited set of things because if I try Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, it’ll go through Jimmy Fallon. It’s like, “No, no, no, there’s photos of you and Kristen Stewart.” You starred in two movies with Kristen Stewart, at least.

Jesse: I see. Okay, got it. It sticks to its own game.

John: Absolutely. Jesse, do you have something to share for us? One cool thing?

Jesse: Yes, sure. One of my favorite shows of all time– God, when did I first learn about it? Probably when I was 14 years old? I’m 41, so do the math. It’s called Floyd Collins. It’s a great musical by Adam Guettel, my favorite composer. It’s coming back to New York. It’s a musical that’s basically every college kid’s favorite musical, but it’s never been produced on Broadway. Now it’s coming. It’ll be in New York, I think, pretty soon. I just recommend it to anybody who can go. It’s just the coolest music.

John: Floyd Collins by Adam Guettel. Tell me the story of Floyd Collins, I don’t know it.

Jesse: Actually, you probably would know the Billy Wilder movie, Ace in the Hole. It’s about a caver in Kentucky in 1925 who gets stuck in a cave, and then this circus forms around him. Ace in the Hole, I think, follows the reporter. In this, you’re following the guy who gets stuck in the cave, and this just circus forms around the cave of he turns into a novelty and he dies. This is a true story of the guy stuck in the cave. Come look at the guy stuck in the cave. The guy died, he couldn’t get out. It’s just this really dramatic irony and tragic true story and the musical.

John: That’s awesome. Floyd Collins.

That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Nico Mansy. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions like the ones we answered today. You’ll find transcripts at johnaugust.com along with a sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies.

You’ll find this at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with links for all the things we talked about in the newsletter you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to our premium subscribers who make it possible for us to do this. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net. We get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on audio dramas. Jesse Eisenberg, an absolute pleasure speaking with you.

Jesse: Thank you so much, John. What a great honor to be on your show.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Jesse, I want to talk to you about audio dramas because you have written a few, you’ve starred in some. Talk to me about that as a form and what interested you about them and how you do writing that you know is only going to be heard and never seen.

Jesse: I like writing fiction. What I mean by that is prose. I like writing. I’m not a very good writer when it’s not about characters. I can write voices really well. I wrote this book called When You Finish Saving the World and it’s three characters over the course of 30 years. That for me was my version of a novel because I can write those characters really well. It’s all first person. That’s as good as I can get at prose, which is essentially monologue form. Stories are being told and characters are shifting and changing and it takes place over 30 years. Things that are seeds that are planted in, when was it, 2002, come much later. That for me, I loved. I loved and I would do that all the time if I could.

John: So in writing something for an audio drama or performing in one, you’re just reading a script like a play, but you also have to think about creating the space. I don’t listen to a lot of fiction podcasts, but the way that you establish, ‘Where are we? What’s going on around us?” You’re in a black void without any visuals to establish what’s happening there.

Jesse: Exactly. What I did with that book was I created three mechanisms for these stories to be told, because it was all real audio, it wasn’t like a narrator. Basically, it was all audio that would have actually been recorded. The first story took place like five years ago. I played this character and it was a guy who was having trouble connecting to his emotions and they recently had a baby and they went to a couple’s counselor and the couple’s counselor told me to make a recording for them once a night where I try to talk about my feelings about the baby, where I can really talk about feelings, try to emotionally connect to the baby. Basically, the first set of tapes were just me on the iPhone messages.

Then it jumped 15 years in the future and this kid is going to therapy and it’s a therapy bot. It’s essentially like a ChatGPT therapy. You’re hearing him talk to the therapist. Then it jumps 30 years in the past and it’s a young woman and it’s the mother of the boy and the wife of me but in her past and she is making tapes for her boyfriend who is deployed overseas to Uzbekistan right after 9/11. Anyway, once I came up with the mechanism for it and you slip in as much exposition as you could possibly put in briefly and entertainingly to just establish where they are and what they’re doing and why they’re talking, then you’re good to go.

John: Just like for your movie, you had to provide a context for why we’re on this Jewish cultural site tour, but you had to provide a context for why are we hearing this audio.

Jesse: Right.

John: This is audio that would have been recorded at that place, that time. That makes sense.

Jesse: Yes, and what I’ve discovered by being in movies and writing plays and stuff is, once you just like establish that thing, audiences go on the ride because they’re no longer– as long as you make it seem relatively reasonable that they would be doing this, then they’re into the emotions and the human stories. Then you can, basically, have free rein.

John: I went to go see this play, I Am My Own Wife, which is a great one man show.

Jesse: Yes, I love it.

John: I went to see it at the Geffen here in Los Angeles and this older couple was in front of me. The woman leans to her husband and says like, “It’s a woman, but I think it’s a man in a dress. He’s all alone on stage.” I’m like, “Oh my God, what’s happening?” It took me a while to realize like, “Oh, the guy she’s sitting next to with is basically blind.” She basically had to provide a context, but then the rest of it, you didn’t need to see things.

Jesse: Not in that play.

John: A radio play made sense for that viewer there.

Jesse: Do you work in that genre at all or media?

John: I really haven’t. I’ve done the Big Fish stage musical. I’ve gotten a chance to do that, but I’ve not done the audio drama. Other than Scriptnotes, the only other audio format thing I did was called Launch, which was about my Arlo Finch book series. It was the whole process of putting that series out into the world.

Jesse: Oh, interesting.

John: I had to learn the ways of establishing, “Where are we at this time?” Literally finding audio that grounds us in a place where this conversation is happening. If we had to do audio mixing to get you back and forth from that place to this place, this time to that time, it’s just so different than the one-on-one conversation that we’re doing right here, right now.

Jesse: Right, of course. Yes, exactly. That’s interesting. I wonder if you’d find it interesting or liberating to basically just be able to write long monologues.

John: I think it would be great. It sounds really appealing. It also sounds like something that probably more of our listeners should try to do because it’s very producible, and it’s just a good writing exercise in terms of how do you convey this information out there and not worry about all the rest of prose that has to happen there.

Jesse: Exactly.

John: I get frustrated sometimes by screenwriters who say like, “Oh, I could never write a book.” It’s like, “Wow, it’s just words?” Yet I recognize that people have different skill sets and there’s things that are interesting to them or not. You’ve also, I think, acted in some things that have not been stuff you’ve written for audio, is that?

Jesse: Yes, that’s right. Yes, I’ve done books on tape and stuff like that.

John: Do you enjoy the process?

Jesse: Not really. Doing a book on tape is actually like the most physically strenuous thing of all the things I do, including big action movies where you’re shooting overnight. Doing a book on tape, just sitting there reading for like eight hours is mind numbing and really tough vocally. I’m constantly surprised because I always forget, like the pain of childbirth. You forget like, “Oh, I forgot. Last time I did this, it was miserable. It was really hard to do.” It’s hard to do. It’s not really the performance I like. I’ve done a few like radio plays. Those are better. Books on tape is not my thing. I think some actors are really great at it and have the stamina. I have too much, whatever ADD and weak constitution to–

John: My friend Graham is a narrator and it’s such a different way of living. He gets to make choices every sentence about how he’s going to do things. He gets to find a character’s voices that feels really appealing if you’re good at it.

Jesse: Right no, he’s probably great. That’s probably, he’s figured out a way to be really performative and great. I just didn’t have that skill.

John: We’re facing the question of what’s going to happen with the Scriptnotes book. We have a Scriptnotes book coming out at the end of the year.

Jesse: Oh, cool.

John: Probably should have an audio version of the book, but Lord knows I don’t want to narrate it and I don’t think Craig does either. We’ll have to find the right choice for that.

Jesse: You could also do a thing where you have multiple voices.

John: Yes, that’s probably the way to do it.

Jesse: Especially you, because you have so many contacts of performers that would love to do it, I’m sure.

John: We’ll find somebody good to do it. Maybe we’ll draft you in for a short chapter because I know you don’t like to do it.

Jesse: Yes, exactly. Yes, exactly. I’ll do the titles.

John: Fantastic. Jesse Eisenberg, an absolute pleasure speaking with you.

Jesse: You too. Thank you so much, John.

John: Congratulations on your movie.

Jesse: Thanks so much.

Links:

  • A Real Pain | Screenplay
  • Jesse Eisenberg
  • WGAW Wildfire Resources
  • David Lynch
  • Mongolia by Jesse Eisenberg, Tablet Magazine
  • Jesse’s plays The Revisionist and The Spoils
  • Network of Time
  • Floyd Collins the Musical
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on BlueSky, Threads and Instagram
  • Outro by Nico Mansy (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 671: The Best/Worst it Will Ever Be, Transcript

January 15, 2025 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: All right. Okay. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to episode 671 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, it’s one of our favorite regular segments, How would this be a movie? Where we take a look at stories in the news and find their adaptable angles. We also have follow-up on AI, listener questions on partner credits, and in our bonus segment for premium members, let’s discuss Home Automation, Craig.

Craig: Oh.

John: Over this past year, we’ve added a few things to our house, and you just moved into a new house. I’m curious what your take is on home automation and what you’re doing and what you’re thinking about doing.

Craig: This is going to be very educational for me. I already can tell. I’m going to learn a lot, and this probably will end up costing me a bit of money.

John: Yes. A little bit.

Craig: What are you going to do?

John: First, I have a small rant.

Craig: Ooh.

John: Ooh. Craig is excited I have a rant.

Craig: Rubbing my hands together.

John: All right. This is a thing that happened twice. Because it happened twice, I know it’s actually a real thing. It’s not just like one person being weird.

Craig: Okay.

John: Okay. So I’m at the dentist, and I have a hygienist who’s really good. She’s a fast scraper. It’s not painful. Great. She chats a ton, but whatever. She’s not expecting me to answer back. It’s just a monologue-

Craig: You can’t.

John: -on her side. Good. Great. She says, “Your wife must be so proud of how good you are at cleaning your teeth.” It’s like–

Craig: It’s like [mumbles]

John: [mumbles] I’m like, okay, well, sometimes people don’t read me as gay, which is fine. I would otherwise correct her. Then I realized like, no, she also cleans Mike’s teeth, so she knows that he’s a man. Following this through, her belief is that the partner of a man is a wife, that you call that person a wife.

Craig: Oh, no.

John: Oh, no.

Craig: No.

John: It’s happened to other places too. It happened with other medical professionals.

Craig: Really?

John: It’s so strange. Here, I just want to state clearly so that everyone knows this, a male spouse is a husband.

Craig: Yeah. Is this one of these cases where someone feels so comfortable with the gay community that they’re like, “I’m going to use your words?”

John: No, no. No, no, no. It’s actually just a genuine, had never occurred to them before. It’s just like a misunderstanding of how English works.

Craig: In Los Angeles?

John: Yes. Isn’t that wild?

Craig: That is wild. Yes. Don’t do that.

John: There was no malice intended. It’s just strange though, right?

Craig: Wait. You said, by the by, spit, rinse. “Actually, I have a husband.”

John: Yes.

Craig: She said, “Oh, I know.”

John: No. She’s like, “Wait, you call him a husband?” I was like, “Well, yes.”

Craig: What did she think– You’re both wives in her mind?

John: I have no idea. I couldn’t get that far deep into her thought process, but essentially any person married to a man would be a wife.

Craig: Oh, honey. [laughs] That’s just wrong.

John: It’s wrong.

Craig: No, it’s just wrong. Wait, you said it’s happened twice.

John: It’s happened twice. It’s happened once and then it was another, this is a few years back, a different medical person.

Craig: Wait, so it’s only the medical people that are doing this.

John: I’m noticing among the medical staff.

Craig: All right. Let’s talk to our health professionals out there. What are you doing? Cut that out. That’s ridiculous.

John: I can understand people who are nervous about understanding pronouns or they’s, them’s. We’re in a place where it’s complicated. You can’t always be sure how a person wants to be addressed by themselves. But I think this is just a subtle matter of how English works is that a guy who’s married to a guy has a husband.

Craig: Yes. A married man is a husband.

John: Yes. Now you could say partner, spouse, other things like that.

Craig: Sure. I think I’ve done a little rant– Have I done a rant about partner?

John: Sure. Go for it.

Craig: I’ll do a little rant about partner. Very common in Europe. I’ve noticed in the UK, everybody refers to their spouse as partner and I’ve also been seeing it more common here and I think in part it’s because people are trying to be really inclusive and remove gendered partnering language. The problem is, partner-

John: Business partners.

Craig: -means two different things.

John: Writing partners.

Craig: When I meet somebody and they’re like, “Yes, I’ve been working on this show and I actually, I showed the script to my partner who was really thrilled,” and I’m like, ”Aah, is that–“

John: Part of the reason why we get to partner is also because it’s the unmarried person you live with who we, for all functional, is your spouse for everything else but law.

Craig: That’s the other thing.

John: I get that. Yet it’s a frustrating situation. It’s ambiguous in ways that it’s not useful.

Craig: It’s ambiguous in ways that are, that is not useful. I’m all for coming up with language that makes people comfortable.

John: Totally.

Craig: I think that’s great. I can see why there’s a need for a term that is different than husband or wife or spouse that covers somebody you’re not technically married to. Although my feeling is if you’re objected to technical marriage, go ahead and claim just virtual marriage and call them your spouse. That’s a perfectly great word.

John: Yes. Oy.

Craig: Oy.

John: Not solvable, but just, I wanted to put this out in the world for like the husband situation, the husband-wife situation, I think is at least standardized enough in American English. You shouldn’t need to worry about this.

Craig: That one, that lady invented a new problem. Now we’re about to get a bunch of emails about partner. I’ll take it. I’ll take it on the chin.

John: All right. Some more follow-up. Drew, start us off.

Drew Marquardt: Yes. We had been talking about Flightplan and how it came from The Lady Vanishes, which is a Hitchcock movie. Andrea Bartz wrote in and said, “As a thriller novelist in the throes of adapting my own novel, I had to point out that Hitchcock’s masterful The Lady Vanishes was an adaptation of Ethel Lina White’s criminally underrated 1936 novel, The Wheel Spins. Levels of genius all the way down.”

Craig: Ooh. I love that. Yes. Isn’t that interesting? Someone writes a book in 1936, you said. Then whoosh, you go 75 years into the future and there’s a movie about people on a plane. They had planes in 1936. I’m stretching a little bit. That speaks more to the immortality that you can achieve through art than just about anything I can think of. That’s really cool. Because someone’s going to take Flightplan 15 years from now and do it again. It’s never going to end.

John: The central sort of gaslighting, no, no, it never actually– that person was never there. You’re imagining this whole thing.

Craig: That’s good. It’s just good.

John: It’s good stuff. What is also apparently good was your Belfast accent, Dave in Belfast wrote in. Let’s listen to what he said.

Dave Marks: Hey John and Craig. Long time podcast listener and big fan. My name is Dave Marks or Dave Marks, as anyone outside of Belfast would pronounce it. Speaking to Craig’s Belfast impression from Say Nothing or say no’hin’ as we’d say with no T in it.

Do it nye, do was a bit more ooh and a bit less ooh. With do we just say do, not do. Little bit Americanised. The nye however was bang on point and that’s the bit most people get wrong. You just need to work on the old. How now brown cow becomes hye nye brown cow and that gets you all the way to Belfast.

Craig: Hye nye brown cow.

John: Great. A thumbs up from Dave in Belfast.

Craig: I am elated. Elated. It really is a fascinating accent. There are so many things that are so specific to the Northern Irish accent. Somebody, I’m sure, has a linguistic term for how this functions where accents are created in part by a political boundary because it really is a political boundary accent. The Dublin accent feels like an entirely different English from the Northern Irish Belfast accent. There are so many wonderful, wonderful things in that accent that just, I don’t know, make my heart sing. I’m glad that I got one and a half words right. [laughs]

John: Excellent. All right. We have some more follow-up on AI. In episode 669, we’re talking about they ate our words.

Drew: Benjamin writes, “Craig says he didn’t know if people were freaking out about Google linking when Google first started. They absolutely were. In fact, there were lawsuits over scraping and linking. The compromise that was eventually reached was that linking to something is acceptable because you are pointing to the source. Quoting or showing content on another site, however, had to undergo fair use scrutiny the same as if you were quoting in a book or magazine article.”

Craig: Okay. First of all, always comforting to know that we’ve always been freaking out. That’s a good reminder that every time some new technology comes along, we do tend to get a bit reactionary. It didn’t occur to me that the real issue wasn’t so much the pointing to things, and I agree with that, pointing to something doesn’t feel like you’re stealing it.

But the little tiny bits of summary that go along with the link, that’s a republishing and that’s an interesting fair use case, which, obviously Google prevailed. I think that’s reasonable, actually. That does feel like what fair use is about, a little snippet that is, meant to lead you to the intellectual property as opposed to replace it.

John: I think it’s also important to remember that we talked about this under the legal framework. What is legal, what is not legal versus what is ethical and versus what is not ethical.

Craig: Oh, right. Two different things.

John: I think we’re always looking for what are the laws, but what are the moral rules behind what you should be doing or publishing or claiming as your own. I see this on Instagram a lot where people will republish someone else’s thing without giving them credit or they will give them credit. It’s like they’re doing it for their own clout versus actually creating an original thought. To what degree is that just spreading culture?

Craig: It does feel like sharing culture has led to a lack of interest in attribution, whereas in academia and journalism, attribution is still considered an extraordinarily important thing. The levels of fact-checking that The New Yorker did on a piece, an interview with me, I mean really, why? It was down to like, you said you were at a cafe with this person, and we had to call and check and make sure that you were. Then everything is attributable and notable and checkable. Then in sharing culture, nothing is. It’s not even a question of people going, “Oh, I’m going to put this out there and pretend it’s mine.” They don’t even think about it.

John: No.

Craig: No one seems to care. That’s horrible, actually.

John: Yes. That’s always been that way. It’s like, I think the fact that we are now looking at digital things where you can try to do the forensics and track them back. We’ve had sharing culture for jokes for forever. We’ve had sharing culture for story ideas have always propagated throughout. The fact that, all of Shakespeare’s plays are directly inspired by things that came from before them. That’s always been a part of–

Craig: Yes, inspiration for sure. Jokes are a really interesting case because they are designed to be shared without attribution. It would be an interesting project to figure out who was the first person to come up with this joke that we’ve all heard 400,000 times. On the internet where things begin with a clear attribution, that’s a time-stamped attribution. Then what happens is, of course, people complain and say, “You stole my thing.” Then that becomes a thing. Then people share that and da, da, da, da, da.

John: It’s worth acknowledging that joke theft is a real thing. Among comedians, that’s a huge issue. The issue comes up of to what degree have you made something your own or are you ripping off this type of joke versus the actual wording of a joke?

Craig: Joke stealing in comedy is a fascinating topic. There have been a few notable cases where accusations were made. I won’t go so far as to say that proof was given in some sort of legal way, but there was a huge brouhaha over Carlos Mencia. There have been similar arguments made about Amy Schumer. Then people will show side-by-sides and things. Sometimes you look at these and you’re like, “Well, I can see how two people might come up with the same joke here.” Sometimes you look at it and go, “Oh, no, that’s like kinda word for word there.”

The world of stand-up comedians and that culture, that whole joke theft thing is fascinating. It is a major concern for them. They will talk amongst themselves. Comedians know, for instance, “Hey, if you see so-and-so at the club and you’re going up there before them, after them, it doesn’t matter, if they’re there, don’t do new material. Don’t do new material because they’ll be doing it next week and they’re more famous than you.”

John: Yes.

Craig: It’s scary.

John: More AI feedback here from Anna.

Drew: We got a lot of great AI feedback, so this one comes from Anna.

Craig: Is the feedback from AI?

Drew: Oh my God. no, I don’t think this one is, but other ones, you never know.

Craig: You don’t think?

Drew: You don’t think. Anna writes, “I just found out that a series of novels I co-wrote with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were part of 38,000 or so fiction books.”

Craig: Hold on.

John: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has written quite a few books.

Craig: Also this sounds like something AI would say.

[laughter]

Drew: True.

Craig: It really– “I’ve written 4,000 books with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.” That just feels like a learning language model. Just put some things together. Maybe it was like, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is tall and he got confused with height and amount of writing. Anyway, please–

Drew: It’s only a few novels out of 38,000, I guess.

Craig: Please, restart the question, but keep in mind my concern.

Drew: Just found out that a series of novels she co-wrote with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were part of 38,000 or so fiction books, both classic and contemporary, used to feed AI. “Apart from feeling thoroughly ripped off, I’m also bewildered. Our novels are historical fiction. They have fictional as well as historical characters. Queen Victoria comes to mind. There are half a dozen minor characters who do things they never did and say things they never said.

I do a gargantuan amount of research to portray an era, in this case, the 1870s accurately, but not to put too fine a point on it, I’m still making shit up. How would AI know this? In that great repository of info dumping, how will AI weed out the fake from the facts?”

Craig: It won’t.

John: It won’t. Anna, so I want to back up in here and say like, you’re feeling thoroughly ripped off and bewildered. Those are natural emotions. I totally get why you’re feeling that. Something that may be helpful for you to understand is that the LLMs, the models, they don’t care about the actual subject matter you’re giving them. What you’re giving them is a bunch of words in English that all fit together, that are complete whole thoughts.

They’re not looking for facts. They’re looking for long strings of words that all fit together and actually make sense together. That’s what your book provided. I don’t think you need to worry that some other piece of writing that’s generated by one of these things is going to involve these fake stuff that you made up in historical fiction. It’s unlikely to actually happen that way. Mostly what this is going to do is create a tool that is going to generate an email for somebody that’s a little bit better than it would have been otherwise.

Craig: Yes, that’s exactly right. I do think this is a common misconception that what AI is doing is taking chunks of stuff and regurgitating it as its own. If it were doing that, it wouldn’t be intelligent, artificially or otherwise. It’s just learning how our sentences are put together, how grammar functions and what words are related to other words and how closely.

So on the one hand, don’t worry that people will think that Queen Victoria, I don’t know, used an iPhone, whatever it was that happened in this book that was maybe anachronistic or just incorrect. Do worry that your work was sort of used for this.

This is where it gets interesting because AI isn’t taking intellectual property and using it as intellectual property. It’s almost like it’s taking a painting and just looking at how paintings are made. What do you do with that?

It feels to me like copyright law needs to be amended. Just side note here, because if we try and apply existing copyright law to this, I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere. It feels like copyright law needs to be amended to say that one of the rights that is inferred by copyright is the right for the material to be used as the basis for learning. That’s tricky because–

John: Human learning versus training on a model, it’s incredibly complicated.

Craig: It’s complicated.

John: Yes, there’s not a great easy way through this. Again, I understand what you’re feeling. Months ago, when we were looking at these examples of songs that were clearly, this is a Beach Boys song. Those examples were like, okay, well, you fed in all this stuff and it spit out something that looked exactly like the original. You can obviously tell what its references are. This is not going to happen based on your book being fed into this.

Craig: No. No, no.

Drew: More feedback here from Caleb. Caleb writes, “We’re at a new birth of artificial intelligence. It makes pretty things, but is it art? Why not?” He shares from Rudyard Kipling’s poem, The Conundrum of the Workshops. “When the flush of a newborn son fell first on Eden’s green and gold, our father Adam sat under the tree and scratched with a stick in the mold. The first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart till the devil whispered behind the leaves, “it’s pretty, but is it art?”

John: I read that whole poem. Put a link to it and we’ll put a link in the show notes to it. It’s a really great Kipling poem. It’s so clever to bring in as like, at every point in the artistic process, I’m going to question whether it’s actually artistically worthy. The poem goes on to sort of great things are made, the towers of Babel is created and the devil is always whispering, “But is it really art?”

Craig: Yes, and I don’t know. The word art is a trap. I hear it all the time. I sometimes use it to describe what you and I do. Rarely, because it feels a bit goofy to me. I think the is it art, what is implied in the question is it art is is it valid?

Validity is seemingly something conferred upon art by not artists, by critics. I don’t care. I don’t care. That’s all they do all day. The devil is a critic. [laughs] The critic is whispering in the creator’s ear. Is it good? Is it art? Is it worthy? Is it valid? Basically, not today, satan.

One of the things that does give me pause to describe what I do as art is it sometimes feels almost that the lady is protesting a bit much. “My art, you assholes, who say it’s not art.” I would rather just call it a TV show or a movie and let it be what it is. If it were a painting, I’d call it a painting. If it were a statue, I’d call it a statue.

The fine arts, let’s say, for instance, painting, everybody agrees, “Oh, that’s art,” and we call it art. Just as how people seem to all agree that the best picture is a drama because that’s what’s best. It’s not, and other things are art. The word is loaded. Is what AI does art? The critics can all, “Let the devils discuss amongst themselves,” they say.

John: Meanwhile, just keep making things.

Craig: Meanwhile, just keep– thank you. Just make stuff. The word stuff, by the way, perfectly good.

John: Absolutely. Some of the stuff that’s being made increasingly are videos, and so months ago, we talked about Sora, which has now been released, so people can play around and make clips off of Sora. Google released this new product called VO2, which also looks really good. It can generate video clips that have– the physics in them looks much better. If you have a dog running down a beach, the VO1 looks really impressive. You realize that, you believe that dog is running down the beach.

People wrote in and said like, “Oh, what does this mean for us and for filmmaking?” At this point, not a lot. I think stitching these things together to create bigger projects hasn’t worked out so well. We’ll put a link in the show notes to this film festival that was debuting a bunch of short films made by filmmakers using these tools, and they’re terrible. They’re atrocious.

Craig: Much like most short film festivals. Everything in them was atrocious.

John: It was. But you can see the edges. You can see how hard they were trying to make some of this stuff work, trying to get people’s faces to look consistent, trying to get dialogue to sync and match. These are all tough things. It does a really good job at like, here’s three seconds of a person moving quietly through a space. Much harder for it to do real things.

Yet, I want us to always remember, this is the worst it’ll ever be. These tools will get better, year after year after year. Things will improve along the way, but just we all recognize there’s a big gap between where we are and where this becomes a profound danger.

I think my bigger concern is that well before these things are able to make an hour of television or a two-hour movie, they can create something that is interesting and compelling and different enough that it takes the attention of people who would otherwise see movies and television. If that were to happen at a big enough scale, that could have huge impacts on our industry. Basically a new form of entertainment comes out of this generation that just obviates the need for what we’re doing.

Craig: It doesn’t have to be better than us. It just has to be as good. If it is as good, we lose instantly because of volume. Because they can just create things at speed and volume and we can’t. Even if it’s almost as good, we lose. There is an article I will cite as my one cool thing that provides a glimmer of potential hope. It is a little bit of a pipe dream theory, but it is promising for those of us who are just hoping that AI can only go so far and that the singularity is perhaps unreachable.

Drew: Let’s wrap up here, I’ve got a question here from Michael. Michael writes, “You discussed what it means for AI to use our work, but not what it means for us to use AI. I wondered if you could share how you’re feeling about using it in your own work.”

John: Yes, so this is something I’ve been thinking a lot about for the last couple of weeks. We’re trying to draft up sort of like an official policy company-wide, but also thinking about sort of what I feel like personally. There’s a couple of different areas I sort of want to focus on. First off, would the use of AI be in some sort of public-facing role? Is this something that the world outside is going to see material that’s being generated by AI? Would it be text? Would it be images? That’s a no for me. Anything that’s representing our work or my work should not be generated by AI.

I ask, is this work that would normally be paid work, that we would pay somebody to do? That’s a huge red flag for me. Is this technology being used by the person whose job it is to make the thing? If it’s a coder doing coding, that feels different than having Drew be doing coding using one of these tools.

That’s what I’m thinking about company-wide, but then I think you have individual choices that might be different. As a writer, for me, I’m asking, am I using this the same way I would use Google? If I’m asking ChatGPT a question that I would normally ask Google for a question, that doesn’t feel that different to me. I don’t actually have big concerns with that.

An example I’ve cited is, I’m working on this graphic novel, and one of the characters in it is a philosopher. I was wondering, okay, well, what would this classical philosopher think about the situation they’re in, which they’re all hungry? It’s like, what do classical philosophers say about hunger? Not the state of famine, but the experience of being hungry.

That’s a really difficult thing to Google or to search for, but it’s actually like a really good question to ask a ChatGPT, because they can spit out answers that like, “Based on these things, this is what Socrates said about this, this is what Plato said about this,” and that was useful for me. I don’t feel bad about that, because it’s doing a thing that would be almost impossible for me to do otherwise.

Similarly, I’m reading Seneca’s tragedies, and I had ChatGPT open, I was just asking questions about like, “Wait, who is this character? What is this based on?” That was incredibly helpful. I don’t feel bad about using those ways. What I do feel bad about is any situation where the stuff that I’m doing, even internally, has an aspect of these tools being used. I think we talked about on the show is pitch decks. If there’s an image I need for a pitch deck, is it fair to generate that through one of these models versus pulling it out of some other movie still frame?

Craig: All of those objections, concerns, and allowances feel very on point to me. I don’t use ChatGPT at all. I don’t use AI at all. However, I don’t use it as I guess I would say, overtly. My suspicion is that a lot of the things I do, the underpinnings are already using AI. There’s that invisible AI I’m not aware of. The one area that I do think it’s interesting, and I would feel okay with is in temp work, not temp work like working as an assistant somewhere for a week. I mean to say in production, doing things that are placeholders until you can do the right thing. That’s interesting.

For instance, when we’re editing, I’m constantly throwing in little lines that I know I’m going to have the actors come and do later down the line with ADR. I’ll say, “Okay, I want this line where let’s say, Isabela Merced off camera says, “Wait, where are you going?” It’ll either be, if it’s a guy, any guy, it’s my voice. If it’s any woman, it’s usually our editor, Emily’s voice. But what ends up happening is you send this cut into the network and you know that they’re going to hear your voice 12 different times in 12 different places. Emily is not Isabela Merced and all of the women shouldn’t sound like Emily. Things like, okay, make this sound more like Isabella Merced for the purposes of this, knowing that then I’m going to have her come in and do this properly.

Just like have Emily do it and then just make the vocal quality sound a little bit more like somebody. I could see something like that being incredibly useful as long as, like you said, it never takes the place of the actual performer doing it. It’s just a placeholder to help you feel out if you’re doing it right.

In that regard, it’s not anything that I think is taking anyone’s job or taking away money. There are things that we do in post-production that I think probably are already using AI. Obviously, I don’t know what’s going on in some of the VFX places where they’re doing rotoscoping. My guess is AI is involved. Okay, someone is in front of a green screen, their hair is blowing around. Each one of those hairs has to be rotoscoped, against the background or comped somehow. I don’t know how they do it.

My guess is they’re using tools that are powered by AI and will be doing so more and more. I know that there are things like beauty fixes, so very common to– if there are some blemishes or things, back in the day, there used to be quite expensive retouching of things, because if an actor just has a honking pimple one day, it’s going to sort of grind your movie to a halt, especially since we don’t shoot things– So like oh, in the beginning of the movie, they had this huge pimple, then it went away, and then a year later-

John: It comes back.

Craig: -the pimple’s back in the same spot. AI can do those things very simply now. I think the people that are using these tools are using that. I, myself, I don’t use it to compose any writing. I recognize, however, that I’m close to 54 years old. I don’t think my experience and the way I conduct my career is probably going to be particularly relevant to somebody who’s 25 right now. I think they’re like, “That’s nice, grandpa. Here’s how we do it. Here’s how the kids do it.”

I don’t want to come off as a Luddite, I don’t want to come off as somebody who’s scolding. I guess all I can say is, it’s certainly not necessary to do good work. I can say that. Yes, ethically, I think we do have a responsibility to try and look out for each other as human beings and not replace each other as quickly as we can.

John: Yes, so examples of the visual effects you’re talking about or the beauty correction stuff, you’re describing the person whose job it is to do that thing, using these technologies as one of the tools in their toolkit to do that thing. That feels like much more defensible. It actually tracks with the recent negotiations and the recent IATSE deal is like, if those technologies are going to be used, they have to be used by the person who’s supposed to be doing them, which makes sense. You’re not trying to replace a person with those things.

Becomes a trickier line, though. I was thinking back at your example of like, okay, well, using AI to create a sound of life for placeholder lines in a movie. In the first Charlie’s Angels, there was a time where we didn’t have John Forsythe to do Charlie’s voice. We had a different actor who was doing that. We kept hiring him and bringing him in to record all these temp lines because he really did sound a lot like John Forsythe.

Ultimately, John Forsythe came in and did it. Realistically, now we could just do a digital John Forsythe for his voice for those placeholders. That’s one actor whose job, we wouldn’t have hired during that time in the meantime. Even though you’re just trying to do a placeholder, sometimes there is the economic cost to somebody.

Craig: Yes, one would hope that SAG continues to refine that language because I think they are probably in the front ranks of soldiers that are going to be fired at by this technology. That’s the scariest. I think writers and directors will be behind them still in danger, but the actors will go first. I think they know that. I think they’re terrified. I think reasonably so. I would be.

John: All right. Let’s get to our main topic, which is how would this be a movie? From the moment this first story started, it’s like, oh, this is going to be a discussion on this podcast.

Craig: How won’t this be a movie?

John: Because we know that our listeners sometimes tune into these episodes 5 years, 10 years after the fact, I need to actually explain this story which is happening so presently that everyone’s like, how can you need to describe this? On December 4th, 2024, Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare is shot on the sidewalk outside of a New York City hotel by a masked assailant. The attacker flees and a manhunt begins.

Now the initial speculation was that it was some sort of professional attack by a hitman, which turns out there are no such things as hitmen. Details emerged quickly that the attacker was staying at a hostel in New York City and that bullets found on the scene had the words deny, defend, and depose written upon them. Several photographs of the suspect show his time in New York City leading up to the shooting, including one of which one of these photos in which his face is visible.

Then on December 9th of this year, Luigi Mangione is arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Craig: Hold on. Say that sentence again because I think future people need to hear it carefully.

John: On December 9th, Luigi Mangione is arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Craig: Luigi Mangione is arrested at a McDonald’s in Altoona, Pennsylvania. That sounds like a ChatGPT sentence.

John: It does. It does. The whole thing has a sort of made-up fictional quality, which I think is what’s so compelling about it.

Craig: Yes. Yes.

John: A customer noticed him and believed he looked like the man in the photographs. As we record this, Mangione has pled not guilty to state and federal charges. This is the world of a movie about this event. You can come at it from any angle, but I think what’s so notable out of this to me is like from the start, from the moment you first heard about this, oh, whoever did this perceives themselves as being the central character in a movie story. It was one of those rare situations where it’s like, oh, we’re not forcing a narrative on this. This person is actually perceives themselves as having a role in a narrative.

Craig: Yes. Luigi Mangione is a evidently very smart young man from a privileged background who, as far as I gathered, has experienced both physical issues because he had back surgeries that didn’t seem to work very well and he was in pain, but also clearly was experiencing a mental health episode because he just dropped off the grid, disappeared, stopped talking to friends, stopped talking to his family, moved away to Australia, I think, for a while. Didn’t really tell anybody. And then started writing manifestos. Never a good sign. Essays are nice. Manifesto is not so great.

John: Let me push back a little bit. Any blog post is a manifesto. If after the fact, it looks like it came from a certain person.

Craig: Yes, I suppose a manifesto is an essay followed by a shooting. For sure. It’s fair. Okay, the shooting part is definitely the issue. Luigi Mangione does something that is both on the one hand, the worst crime you can commit, which is cold-blooded murder. On the other hand, becomes a folk hero because everyone hates the American healthcare system and he shot and murdered the CEO of the largest American healthcare corporation and there was this sudden sense of we got one of the fat cats.

That’s this deep class anger and resentment that had been built up over a large amount of time, which is completely unfair, by the way, to this one man and his family-

John: We’re going to talk about that.

Craig: -Brian Thompson. This is where our brains are weak and we can’t help ourselves. The most important factor to creating this as a big story the way it is that Luigi Mangione is very handsome.

John: He is.

Craig: Therein is the goof of it all. If this guy were ugly, no one, and I mean no one, would be on his side. No one. This is pretty privilege at its highest. If he were ugly, people would have been like, “Okay, yes, he was this crazy ugly guy who shot somebody and you shouldn’t do that.” Look, yes, our young colleague is suspicious.

Drew: No, I am. I think the act itself, because before we knew who he was before we even had the face of him, I think there was quite a lot of support for the act, at least online.

John: Let me take both sides here. I think when the act happened, there was a mystery of who this person was, but also there was immediately a sense of like, we are not in any danger. The normal American person is not in any danger, which is such a unique situation because usually there’s a manhunt because that person is a danger to society. This guy wasn’t.

We wanted this guy off the street because he had done this thing in a very public, big way and the police were embarrassed. There were lots of other factors there, but we never saw him as being a danger. He was just this mysterious man, but the slow trickle out of like, okay, here we can see a little bit more of his face because the mask is down a little lower. Oh, here he was flirting with the woman at the hostel.

Craig: That one picture changed everything.

John: Absolutely. Oh my God, he’s a smoke show and therefore the Timothee Chalamet and all the other stuff comes out. Absolutely.

Drew: But I think of the 24 hours before, I think the competency in a way was the most attractive thing.

Craig: Well, the idea, there are two possible ways of thinking about this. One way is there is a masked avenger out there who is fulfilling our need for street justice against evil corporate overlords.

John: It feels like a Robin Hood.

Craig: It feels like a Robin Hood, except instead of stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor, he’s just murdering people on a sidewalk, which isn’t great. Then the picture came out and everything changed. Then it was like, “Oh my God, he’s hot. A hot guy is doing this.” Then when they caught him and they said his name was Luigi Mangione, everybody– it got even better because it was like, it felt like a meme name.

I saw a headline when they caught him and the headline, when they finally figured out, okay, who’s this person? They figured it out. The headline was, “It’s a me, Luigi,” which made me laugh. Then I thought, why am I laughing? A man was murdered on the sidewalk. Saturday Night Live did Weekend Update. Of course, they mentioned Luigi Mangione and many, many, and they were women, you could tell by the pitch of their voice, went, “Woo.” Colin Jost went, “Oh. Yes, okay. We’re wooing for justice, right?” Because he’s a murderer. How do we make this a movie?

John: How do we make this a movie? Because so really it’s, where do you choose to center the story? Obviously, it is a movie versus a series. I think there’s a good case for making it a series. I’m sure Ryan Murphy is going to be, those conversations are already happening to make the series.

Craig: I’m sure they’re on day 40 of shooting already.

John: Yes. The question is, you can easily imagine the narrative that’s all centered on him leading up to and after the shooting because it’s compelling. The planning, the escape, the being on the run, the camera, the surveillance state, all that stuff is really exciting. In that version, it’s really hard to center or anchor around this man who was killed and the actual, the crime itself in a way, because the crime itself becomes secondary to the cultural phenomenon.

Craig: I tend to think about these things as much as I can from the least privileged point of view and make that the interesting point of view. The least privileged point of view in this case would probably be Brian Thompson’s family, because listen, we can discuss whether or not it is fundamentally unethical to be the CEO of a health insurance corporation. However, that is our system.

The health insurance corporations exist. You could argue that it is unethical to not be the CEO of a health insurer. If you think you would be better at providing health to people than the alternative. If it’s me or that asshole, I guess I’d do better than that guy. That’s the system we have. He was murdered because somebody with mental health problems felt aggrieved by decisions that that guy probably had nothing to do with.

Now mine husband, my father, my brother is dead and everyone’s cheering. They’ve turned this kid who, by the way, looks terrified into a hero. He is not. Now it really becomes an exploration of how we distort truth to create narrative. The Luigi Mangione backlash will be coming soon. It’s going to come. It’s inevitable, because that’s how this pendulum swings.

I would make, probably, a movie about the way people lost their minds. I probably would also fold into it the other least privileged point of view, which is somebody caught up in the UnitedHealthcare System because there are poor people who are suffering because that insurance company is gross and they’re not murdering anyone. Who’s going to look after those people while we concentrate on the most powerful two people involved in the story, the man who ran a corporation and the person who was pulling the trigger of a gun?

John: We recorded this and Mangione has been arrested. He’s now being transferred back to New York City, but we don’t have information from his point of view. That’s all we know is like his note is his manifesto. We don’t have any greater insight and that’s going to completely transform everything once we have his current explanation of why he did what he did, how it all fits together and that’s going to really influence things.

So I do wonder about trying to map out the story now when you don’t, he’s still just a cipher. We still don’t have a way to handle him and you say like, “Well, he’s going through a mental health crisis.” Sure, that tracks with what I’ve seen, but until we actually see an interview with him, we can’t know what this is because he could also be incredibly savvy in ways that we’re not anticipating.

Craig: He was pretty savvy. He wasn’t savvy enough to not sit in a McDonald’s, which by the way, is a corporation with his manifesto in his bag and the murder weapon in his bag, duh. He was exhibiting what I would consider to be a high intelligence and also disordered thinking. Anyone that thinks that murdering somebody is the solution to their problems is exhibiting disordered thinking, I would argue.

He’s also a fan of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who in a very similar way was brilliant and targeted people that he felt were putting technology ahead of humanity. It wasn’t, again, “random”. Those of us who weren’t involved in research labs to, I don’t know, whatever, invent new plastics or Ted–

John: We were not going to get a bomb.

Craig: No, we weren’t getting mailed a bomb. Then there is that weird sense of, “Yes, someone’s doing something about it.” Americans love the story of a violent loner. Hollywood has been celebrating violent loners since film was invented. Probably not a good idea.

John: Getting back to where he fits in this overall cinematic universe, we have other examples like Bonnie and Clyde, the villains who were sticking it to the rich man, do become cultural heroes. That’s not a unique experience for us to be having with Mangione in this situation. I’m also struck by not that atypical. I think you could find a lot of people who meet the general characteristics of a Mangione, the kinds of podcasts he listened to, that self-improvement, that kind of stuff.

I think part of what’s so compelling to me about this story is that, well, what’s different about him versus the other thousand guys out there who fit in the same template?

Craig: Well, a circuit breaks and we don’t know which circuit and we don’t know why. I would say the great majority of people, if put in front of their enemy or the person that makes them the angriest and handed a gun, would not pull the trigger.

John: Yes, but that’s not what he did. It wasn’t that he was in a situation where he had the opportunity. He had to make a plan and systematically put the plan into place. I feel like we reward society for those individuals who can build companies, create great new things. He sort of has that founder’s mentality, but for–

Craig: He still had to pull the trigger.

John: Yes.

Craig: My argument is that’s where he steps away from the rest of us. Because the reason most people build businesses as opposed to murder, aside from the illegality, is because murder is not an option. I say this as an atheist. I feel like atheists get special points for saying this. I don’t not murder because I’m afraid of hell. I don’t not murder because I’m afraid of God’s punishment or disappointment. I don’t murder because my brain is organized in such a way as to find that horrifying. I could not do it.

I’m fascinated by portrayals of people who struggle to murder people. I do oftentimes think about how interesting it is when we watch movies where the tone is I can happily murder. The ’80s really went all in on that. The happy quipping murderer hero. That’s where this is scary.

John: The reason why I don’t want to drop this is that I feel like we feel like we’re in a time of increasingly violence as– political violence being a thing we see in the world and even in the US after the–

Craig: Attempted assassination on Donald Trump.

John: Absolutely. Also, I would say January 6th before that was the political violence we just aren’t used to. We used to have more of it. We used to have bombings and those kinds of things. I just feel like I can envision a character like Mangione who sees this as a killing baby Hitler situation where they feel themselves as like, “This is a chance for me to alter the future. Therefore, this is not just a murder, this is actually an act which will change society.”

Craig: Yes. That would be a thought of deep, deep delusion and also not particularly smart for a guy who is smart. Somebody else has to be the CEO now. It’s like that company isn’t going away. A little like Tim McVeigh drove a truck bomb up to the Murrah Federal Building and blew it up. Hundreds of people died, including children. That accomplished nothing. Nothing.

There is that sense of, “We’re going to start something. We’re going to kick off this big war that everyone’s ready to go fight.” No. Most people are not ready to go fight. I think social media has amplified some of the worst voices and made them feel more plentiful, I suspect, than they are. I’m just thinking about the Trump-Biden election. I think Trump got 68 million votes or something like that, or maybe tens of millions of people voted for him. 5,000 showed up that day. Very small number, happily.

My argument being most people are good, or if not good, terrified to commit violence. Luigi Mangione was not. That makes him terrifying to me. People that are celebrating him, I think, should not. That’s what’s terrifying to me is the idea that somebody can calmly walk up to somebody on a sidewalk and after all they’re planning, do it. That’s the scary thing.

John: Yes. All right. Let’s move on to our next story. This is an article by Paul DeBole written for Commonwealth Beacon in Massachusetts. It is, how do you license a fortune teller? In the state of Massachusetts, fortune tellers have to be licensed, which is great. You basically investigate what the licensing requirements are and what different cities in Massachusetts do for this.

How do you even define fortune-telling? Well, this is how it’s laid out in the law. “Fortune telling is the telling of fortunes, forecasting of futures, or reading the past by means of any occult, psychic power, faculty, force, clairvoyance, cartomancy, psychometry, phrenology, spirits, tea leaves, tarot cards, scrying coins, sticks, dice, sand, coffee grounds, crystal gazing, or there’s such reading through mediumship, seership, prophecy, augury, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, mind reading, telepathy or other craft, art, science, talisman, charm, potion, magnetism, magnetized article or substance, or by any similar such thing or act.”

I just respect them so much for like pulling out the thesaurus and figuring out what are the things– because they have to be careful like not to define probability or statistics or other things that are fortunes.

Craig: That’s an amazing list of things, although necromancy really shouldn’t be in. Necromancy? The raising and manipulation of the dead? Anyhoo, they could have just said bullshit. This is an interesting– I actually understand why they do this, because let’s say you decide reasonably, business licenses are for businesses, not for a bunch of bullshit. We’re not going to license bullshit, that’s ridiculous.

Now you got 20 bullshit shops in the rundown part of town, because weirdly, the people that peddle this crap, they can never seem to afford nice places. You’d think that they would, but it’s always crap. Anyhoo, they can’t leave that unregulated. I suspect that the licensing of these places, even though there’s this wonderful moment in the article where they ask like, “Why do you license these places?” The woman says, “To make sure that they’re good at it or something.” [chuckles] It’s really just to limit how many of them there could be, I suspect.

John: In certain cities, like there’s Amesbury City, lifted the cap on one license for the telling of fortunes for money per 50,000 residents. Basically, you’re trying to control a thing that’s out there and also to make sure that because they’re actual legitimate businesses, they’re collecting taxes and there’s not shady money laundering stuff. There’s reasons why you have to do it. Yet I just found it this delightful, and I think there’s some– it’s not probably the central focus of the movie, but I think there’s some delightful thing about either a family business, a family fortune telling business that loses their license or some legal drama, some sort of, My Cousin Vinny is like, you have to like defend this company.

Craig: You could also see a supernatural, comedy adventure like Men in Black where you meet a guy and his job is to check and grant/renew licenses for these people and they’re all real. He finds that one of the one thing is no necromancy. Everyone is, can’t do necromancy. Then he’s like, “Someone’s clearly doing necromancy here,” and follows it into some Ghostbusters-y sort of thing. It’s a great like beginning where you take a job and you’re like, “None of this is real.” Then it turns out some of it’s real. It is mind-blowing to me that people go to these things and believe any of it. It is mind-blowing. There’s so many of them. There’s so many.

John: Yes, I know really smart people who have gone to them and I found them useful and helpful and then also became sort of weirdly obsessed with the people who were giving them their fortunes, which makes sense, and get bilked for money.

Craig: Yes, they became weirdly obsessed with the charlatans that are con artists that–

John: Are very skilled at doing this thing.

Craig: Yes, digging their claws into you and extracting your dough. I’ve said this before. If I could do any of those things, I would be performing those things for free as a saint because that’s what I would be, a saint. I would be the most famous, most beloved person in the world if all I did was legitimately help people talk to the dead. The people that claim to be able to talk to the dead, they would prefer to be in a small shop in a strip mall next to a nail place, charging $25 a read. Interesting.

John: Lastly, we have an article by Susan Dominus for The New York Times Magazine. This is about an IVF mix-up, a shocking discovery and an unbearable choice. Here’s the brief version of this. We have a couple, Alexander and Daphna, who give birth to their second daughter, whom they name May. She’s a great, easy baby. The husband, other people start to say like, “This does not really look like it came from either one of us.”

Craig: This was a baby that was implanted in the mother via IVF.

John: Absolutely. They had the baby with IVF. They did a home genetics test and they found out neither of them is related to this baby. They have this moment of faulty decision.

Craig: It was sort of around three or four months.

John: Yes, so quite young. The question’s like, what do we do? Do we tell anyone? Do we go to the clinic? They end up hiring a surrogacy lawyer, went to the clinic, and it turned out that one of their initial suspicions was like, “Okay, this is not the right embryo that I gave birth to. What happened to our embryos? What happened there?” It turns out there was another baby born about the same time who was their embryo.

Craig: Living 10 minutes away.

John: Yes, which is crazy. They meet this other couple who are in fact– well, one’s Asian, one’s Latino. That’s why these babies don’t look anything alike. They make the decision like, “Well, we are going to swap the kids back, but what will that even look like? What is the process going to be? How do we do this?” In the background of all of this, there’s the lawsuit against the fertility company.

But the story really focuses on like, what do these families do? If there’s older kids, how does it all fit together? Craig, what did you take from this? Where do you think the interesting points are to hold on to if you’re trying to adapt this?

Craig: I thought maybe approach best straight forward. The part that was heart-wrenching and fascinating was what do you do when you’ve had a baby for four months and you find out that all of this love and attachment that has occurred shouldn’t have? You now are supposed to have that same love and attachment to a baby you don’t know. Now, I will tell you, if you have an asshole baby, this is a dream come true because some babies are assholes. I’m not going to lie. If you have a good one, I don’t know.

John: I got to babysit over this weekend, the best baby in the world.

Craig: Right, like an angel baby is amazing, right? Our first baby was not an angel. I would have been like, definitely? No, not definitely. That’s my kid. The question at the heart of it is, what defines parenthood? Let’s be even more specific. What defines motherhood? These women didn’t just receive a child from a surrogate mother. They carried these babies to term. These babies grew inside of them. They gave birth to these babies. They were nursing these babies. What is parenthood?

Now, the fascinating question to me is how this is approached differently by the father and the mother. You can see, even in the story, the fathers are like, “Oh, this is an easy one, switch them.” You didn’t grow it in you. You didn’t grow it inside of you. You’re not keeping it alive with your body, not only prenatally but postnatally. What is the nature even of love?

What’s beautiful about this story is that the two families decide to just sort of combine and let these kids grow up almost as sisters, even though there’s really no reason that they should, and the parents struggling. I think in a drama, you would want one of the parents to want to switch and one to not. You’d want to create some conflict, and you’d want to create a sense of that tearing apart. There’s some interesting ways to conclude it, but the issues at the heart of it, if we’re looking for, oh, what’s our central dramatic argument? The central dramatic argument is you do not have to be related to a baby to love it like it is your baby, and in fact, fiercely so.

John: Yes. To me, the most interesting moment was weirdly before the two couples match and where the first couple was like, “What do we do? We do nothing. Are we under any legal obligation to say anything?” Maybe not. I think there’s a moral obligation, probably, but there’s not a legal obligation, so they could have just said nothing, but then there would always be this time bomb out there, like at some point, this is going to come out, and at what point do we figure out that? I think that’s a really interesting. I would love to see that moment staged, and that this actually could be a play in a weird way for that reason. That discussion, that debate is really great.

Craig: This is a theme that goes all the way back to old stories and fairy tales, the idea that you have stolen a child from another mother because the other thing is they don’t know what the deal is with the other family.

John: Yes, at that point, they don’t know that they have their own kid that’s out there someplace, too.

Craig: Exactly. So A, they don’t know if their own kid exists, their biologically owned kid exists. B, they don’t know if the parents who are supposed to have had this embryo, they don’t know if those people have a different baby, another baby. Now you’re just quietly raising someone else’s baby. You know it’s not “yours”, but it kinda is. That’s the fascinating part.

Maybe the more interesting statement isn’t you can love a child as if it is your own, even if it is not biologically your own. Maybe the more interesting statement is you are capable of not loving a child that is your own biological child if you don’t know it, because one of the fascinating things is they each meet their other child and they’re like, “Yeah, nice baby, but who the F are you? I don’t know you.” That’s fascinating to me.

John: Yes. I have lots of good ways into this. This feels like it’s not a series. I think it has to be a short thing. Unless you were to actually do the blended family, but then it becomes– then it’s a comedy probably.

Craig: It’s just blah. We’re sisters, but we’re not. Our parents went to birth.

John: Yes. Having had our daughter through surrogacy and knowing that there are going to be other siblings out there because genetically there are going to be other siblings out there, yes, it’s what’s interesting and not so uncommon about this era that we live in. What’s interesting about this story to me is that it’s not classically like the two babies were switched out at the hospital and you’re just going to switch the babies back. There’s more complicated unknowns in there, too.

Craig: Just the fact that you are carrying a child within you all the way to term, it’s just an entirely different thing.

John: Craig, should we just be doing genetic tests at birth?

Craig: It did strike me that if I were running a fertility clinic and part of my job was implanting embryos, that, yes, at birth, immediately that day, make sure that we didn’t mess up. I don’t understand how that’s not just an immediate thing to do.

John: All right, let’s review our three movies here. There’s going to be multiple Luigi Mangione murder.

Craig: Multi-Mangione.

John: Multi-Mangione. I think there’ll be at least one feature film. There’s definitely going to be some sort of series, some sort of Ryan Murphy-ish series, probably several of them.

Craig: We’re going to hit peak Mangione in about two years.

John: Was there ever a Unabomber movie? I’m not sure I ever saw one.

Craig: I think there might have been some, yes, I bet you, Drew, if you Google up Unabomber movie, there’s going to be some miniseries or there has to have been some, right?

Drew: Yes. There’s one documentary, it seems like.

Craig: Oh, okay. Interesting. You know why? Wasn’t that handsome.

John: Was not handsome.

Craig: Was not handsome.

John: Lived alone in a cabin.

Craig: Lived alone in a cabin. Looked like a crazy old man.
John: Yes. No one liked that.

Craig: His sketch was handsome. In reality, not handsome. That’s why.

Drew: Oh, I lied. We had a Ted Kaczynski movie in 2021 with Sharlto Copley. Oh. I could see Sharlto Copley.

Craig: Okay. Sure. What was it called? Unabomber?

Drew: Ted K.

Craig: Ted K. Oh, boy.

John: Second story, licensing a fortune teller. There’s nothing in Debole’s story that you need to buy. There’s nothing there to buy. The idea of licensed fortune tellers, I think there’s a comedy there to be found.

Craig: Seems about right. I would agree.

John: The IVF story. I think there’s a made for lifetime movie. That’s pretty obvious. Whether there’s a bigger movie to be made out of this, possibly, maybe. What was the Natalie Portman, Julianne Moore movie, which was about the–

Drew: May December.

John: May December. Yes. May December was inspired by actual events. There’s definitely a big feature version you can make at some point, too. I can envision somebody doing this

Craig: Cool.

John: Let’s answer listener questions. Let’s start with Jane Doe here.

Drew: Jane Doe writes, “I’m writing a pilot with a buddy based on his memoir. Credits wise, I’m sure an ampersand makes sense as we’re absolutely writing this thing together. My question is about order of names. What exactly does it mean to order the writer’s names chronologically? Does that mean alphabetically? He’ll obviously have the based on the book by credit for himself. That’s not in dispute at all. Just curious if I’m right that it should be written by Jane Doe and John Everett, D first, E second, or if chronologically means something other than alphabetically. Also, does the fact that it’s Everett’s book affect the byline order for the script in any way?”

John: The chronologically comes if there’s multiple writers over multiple drafts and it’s separated in time, you list them chronologically. That makes sense for that. If it’s an ampersand, you’re considered one writer.

Craig: We don’t actually list them chronologically. Writers that are separated, not as teams, are actually listed in order of prominence of authorship.

John: Before it goes through arbitration.

Craig: Oh, before it goes through arbitration.

John: Basically on that top sheet, you should list.

Craig: Is that what she’s asking or is she asking about like the final credits?

Drew: I think final credits.

Craig: Yes. Final credits still doesn’t apply to her case because she’s a writing team. You can order your names in a writing team however you want.

John: Yes. You can argue about it, fight about it, but eventually, you’re going to have to put out a title page that has your names in one order, and that will be the order you have to go for.

Craig: Sometimes people will put their names in based on how the town refers to them. If the town calls you Smith and Jones, then you’ll probably say written by Smith & Jones.

John: Yes. I think Lord and Miller are always Lord and Miller, and I don’t know that that was chronologically, I don’t think.

Craig: Yes, because it sounds better than Miller and Lord. Yes. Lord and Miller. That’s the actual ordering within the ampersand doesn’t matter. Nobody cares. Doesn’t imply anything. It’s just sort of almost branding more than anything else, because the ampersand means writer.

John: We’re one.

Craig: We are one entity with multiple brains. No, the source material credit has nothing to do with that either. She should stop worrying about that.

John: Agreed. All right. It is time for our one cool things. My one cool thing is a book called Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground by Stu Horvath. I brought this to D&D last week. It is this remarkable book about the history of role-playing games, starting with Dungeons and Dragons, which was the first in the ’70s, and continuing up through the 2020s. It’s really a remarkable excavation of a lot of games I’d never heard of so much, which I did know, and sort of how this whole system of role-playing games developed and grew.

Stu Horvath is publishing this through the MIT Press, but it’s all based on games that he collected over the years. They’re all from his own personal collection. His interviews with a lot of the folks who were behind them, sort of piecing together sort of what grew and what changed, how one game influenced the next game. If you love D&D and other role-playing games, you will love this book. If you don’t care about them, this won’t probably make you care about them. I found it to be just incredibly useful and just a delight to read.

My one observation about this kind of book is it’s the size of a monster manual or a player’s handbook. Its dimensions, but it’s also thicker and heavier. It’s a difficult book to read sitting on a couch. It’s actually not a comfortable book to hold. There’s a class of books that are like, this is a great book, but I need almost like a lectern to sit it on to read because it’s just too big to enjoy that way, but a small cost. Stu Horvath’s Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground.

Craig: Fantastic. My one cool thing is this theory of quantum consciousness.

John: Tell me what this is.

Craig: Quantum consciousness, like almost every theory of consciousness, is completely unsupported by anything we would call evidence. Consciousness is the most– it’s like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. It’s so hard.

John: Consciousness is a feeling. Basically, we have the sense of what being conscious is like, but it’s actually hard to put that into concrete terms.

Craig: It is not only a phenomenon that is difficult for us to describe, we are also asking the phenomenon to describe the phenomenon, which already introduces a huge problem into the mix. We also know that it is pervasive across humans. It is, in fact, probably what defines us more than anything else, more than standing on 2 feet or having opposable thumbs. It is the fact that we are conscious, that we can metaphorize our existence, that we experience things moment to moment and can put them into words, what is going on.

There is this rise of a concept of quantum consciousness, which suggests that the old model of consciousness, which was whatever it is, it’s clearly the function of wiring neurons leading from one to the other. It’s like a huge circuit board, which then would imply AI, right? If it’s just a big circuit board, we can just build a big circuit board over here and it’ll do it.

This other theory is, no, that there are inside of cells in the brain, these microtubules, these very tiny protein things that are behaving in ways that show some sort of quantum mechanics at work, which I will be clear to say, I do not understand at all. All I know is this, quantum functioning has nothing to do with circuit board stuff. If they’re right, that human consciousness is the product of some sort of quantum state occurring rapidly and in this massively distributed manner, AI will never get there until we build quantum computing.

John: Which we got much closer to this last week, I’ll put it there.

Craig: Here’s the other fascinating thing is, at deeply frozen states and all the rest. One of the knocks on quantum consciousness and most scientists are like, “Screw you,” is that the brain is too warm and too wet, as they say. I have no idea. The mystery of consciousness is profound. I find that in and of itself fascinating, that we have no idea how it works. We can barely define it.

John: Yes, like art. It’s one of those tough things. You sort of know when you see it.

Craig: You know it when you feel it.

John: I understand why people are reaching for these things. They want to have a sense that what we do in our brains is different than everything else and that there must be some magic. There’s some homunculus in there who is the real us that is the thing. I think what we’re going to find is that consciousness is just an emergent phenomenon that happens when you have a certain amount of processing capability. It just erupts because also if you look at animals around us, primates, octopuses, and other creatures, it’s clear they can do some very sophisticated things that would, by any of our normal standards, involve consciousness. The things that ravens can do feel like they’re conscious.

Craig: That’s the interesting thing is we’re not sure because we don’t know because we can’t be in their heads. If there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness, it seems like there is. There have been arguments that consciousness is a function of language itself. That if you do not have language, you can’t be conscious because that’s what consciousness is.

Animals don’t have language. Everyone’s going to write in, “Dolphins can talk,” and blah, blah, blah. No. They don’t. They have communication. They don’t have language. I don’t care. I’d send whatever emails you want until a dolphin talks and says stuff. “Actually, there’s one dolphin.” I don’t care. They’re not talking. The end.

John: Yes. The situations where that boundary between what is animal communication versus animal language is interesting. The grey parrots who learn to speak and actually can do some sophisticated things in talking, it becomes a question of like, well, how much is that the training given them to a place? They can say novel things, but does that really mean that they’re conscious in ways that–

Craig: They’re combining sounds. Again, birds communicate through song, and whales communicate through song, and apes communicate through grunts and hand gestures, but none of them are currently writing a limerick. We are different. Now, you’re right, it may be that this is all just this desperate narcissism, neuro-narcissism, that no computer could do what we do. You’re probably right, because after all, we’re not real either. It’s just a question is, how sophisticated is the matrix that we’re inside of? Probably pretty sophisticated. Seems pretty sophisticated.

Drew: Why is language the benchmark for consciousness? I still don’t–

Craig: It may not be. It’s just a theory that consciousness is a function of the brain having an understanding of what the word I means, what the word you means, what tenses mean, am, were, going to be. Those concepts alone create a sense of consciousness, memory, planning ahead, experience right now, and then metaphor, which is a very complicated thing. It’s a very complicated way of thinking.

John: It’s a form of pattern matching, but is generalizable to ways that are so different.

Craig: Yes, and now I can explain something to you using metaphor, which even the word metaphor is a fascinating word. The vocabulary that we have, the thousands of words that we know, all of that stuff is perhaps what is leading to this mush in our heads. Moment to moment, if you try and define your own consciousness, you will fail.

John: The experiment we could never do, which would be telling, is if you could actually raise children in an environment with no language whatsoever and see what are they like, and do they have–

Craig: We’ve seen some of those cases. What happens is they start to create their own language. It seems like language is neurologically innate. Chomsky’s big theory, which seems true, is that grammar, the basic concepts of grammar, are true across all languages, that all languages ultimately do have subject, verb, object.

John: They could put them in different orders. They could have different rules for forming them, but that they all have that concept.

Craig: Yes, that all languages erupt out of the same neurological instruments. Yes, because why? Why would we need me, you, doing things? Somehow that’s how we organized it.

John: A sense of the future, a sense of the past, and we build, communicate those.

Craig: Then conditionals. Conditionals alone. Just the word “If.” That word is so powerful, and I’m not sure a lot of animals have if. If this, then this. If this, then this. If not this, you’ve lost my dogs. If, sit, then treat. I don’t even think they get that far. I think their brains are like, “Sit, treat.” Regardless, it’s not language.

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

We have T-shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You’ll find them all at Cotton Bureau. You’ll find the show notes with the links for things we talked about on today’s show in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you to our premium subscribers. You make it possible for Craig and I to do this show every week. You can sign up to become one at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on home automation. Craig, thanks for a fun and freewheeling episode.

Craig: Yeah, no, we won’t get any emails for this one.

John: Not a bit. Not a one.

[Bonus Segment]

John: All right, Craig, let’s talk home automation and sort of what stuff in your house right now can you ask an assistant, digital assistant to do? What things happen automatically? What do you have working in your house right now?

Craig: Very, very little. I have my thermostats or Nest thermostats.

John: Do you use the app for it or just do you just turn it on and off?

Craig: I generally use the app, although from time to time, I’ll walk by, wave my hand in front of one of them and adjust it. I have reduced the amount of automation they have. The auto scheduling, I found to be brutal. I don’t think it’s very good at figuring out what I want. I found myself constantly being like, “No, Nest, I don’t want it to be 67 degrees. I would like it to be minimum 69, please.” It’s cold as shit in here. It’s like, “Oh, okay.” Then the next day, “You like 66?” I’m like, “No.”

I actually turned auto scheduling off. I do like the auto away, auto home. It knows, okay, if we’re out of the house, but then I worry about the dogs. I don’t want them to get too hot. I’ll probably turn that off too once it gets to the summer. Other than that, my lights are not all wired into a system. I don’t have Alexa. I don’t. You’d think I would. Tell me what to do.

John: In our house, Mike has rewired all our light switches to be programmable and sort of beyond the system. It’s actually really good. It’s actually really nice because I can ask to turn down the lights to 10%. I can turn the lights up. In my office, when it gets a little dark, I can tell it to turn on the lights. It’s really nice for it to do that. I can do the same with our Nest thermostat. I say like, I can ask like, “What is the temperature in the room?” Turn it up to 70 degrees if it’s too cold. That stuff has been really useful.

The other app that we tend to use a lot is as we leave the house, we can turn on the lights to sort of– it sort of randomly turns on different lights as we’re away. It makes it feel much more lived in, which is really, really good. Our locks are on the system, so we can have it lock the doors, unlock the doors. We get a notification if the gate has been opened or a door has been opened. We get a sense of like, “Oh, the housekeeper’s here.”

Craig: I do have that. I have the Lockly is my front door. My question for you is, do you put an Alexa? I assume that’s what you’re using.

John: Oh, in the house, yes.

Craig: Yes. Do you put one in every room so it can hear you everywhere you go?

John: Yes. There’s one in most rooms and you can sort of call out for it. We were always an Apple family. We were using the HomePods, because we rented an Airbnb that had Alexas and it was like so much better that we ended up switching everything off to that. It has been good. On my watch, I can open and close the gate. I can do that kind of stuff. When I’m calling out for someone to do something, it’s generally Alexa.

Craig: Nest is a Google product. Alexa is Amazon. They work together, I guess? They’re happy with each other?

John: The systems for communicating between each other have gotten better. They’re not nearly as good as you sort of would hope they would be, but they’ve gotten better.

Craig: They’re using some sort of protocol, like a standardized protocol. For your lights, what system did Mike put in?

John: I don’t really know.

Craig: Your wife.

John: What does my wife do, by the way?

Craig: What does your wife do?

John: I don’t know which light switches we ended up going with, but they’re all standardized now. My daughter hates them.

Craig: Oh, tell me why.

John: She’s been away at college when it changed. Now, a classical light switch is like the top turns it on, the bottom turns it off, unless it’s a three-way switch with somebody else and then it works the other way. Now the top always turns it on, the bottom always turns it off, but it doesn’t lock in the bottom place or the top place.

Craig: It’s a two-pole or a three-pole. This is another side, a good bonus episode is dealing with your children when they come home from college. Poor Jesse. Poor Jesse, please. I love her to death. We got a different house and she was upset. She was like, “I didn’t want to come home to some weird house, I wanted to come home to my house,” which I completely understood.

Then also I understand, let’s say we had stayed in that house, but only changed the light switches. It would still be somewhat traumatic because that’s where they grew up and they remember something. It’s also a little bit of a sign. I really do sympathize with our kids. They leave to go to college and they come back and they’re like, “Oh, the second I was gone, you started undoing things,” like as if to say, we could have done all this light switch work, but the kid was here. All right, you’ve got your lights automated, which is interesting to me.

John: Generally very useful. We’ll start to watch a movie. It’s like, “Oh, turn the lights down to 10%.”

Craig: That does sound great. Do the switches themselves have to be replaced, or is it some central thing somewhere that–

John: Replacing the switches. Basically, each individual switch knows where it is and what’s going on.

Craig: So many switches.

John: It’s a thing, electricians will come out and it’ll take a day to switch out all the switches.

Craig: They’ll do all the switches. Then you’ve got your switches. You’ve got your lights. I have Spotify, but I suppose if I had Alexa, it could tell Spotify to do that.

John: Yes, it plays then for sure.

Craig: Which would probably be better. I do worry about the Alexa. We had an Alexa briefly and it started to creep me out. Does it ever creep you out?

John: Not so much. We get frustrated with it. We will ask it for like, the daily news, like as we’re making breakfast and sometimes she won’t hear it right or the wrong one will answer or it’ll want to keep playing after we told her to stop. There’s those frustrations. No, on the whole, it’s been fine.

Craig: Do you yell at it?

John: Sometimes I lose my patience a little bit. The, “Damn it, Alexa,” is probably a thing it hears a lot.

Craig: Wow. Do you think Alexa eventually is going to sort of come out and do an article in Variety about you?

John: Absolutely. What an abusive employer.

Craig: Just toxic home environment.

John: Never asked about me.

Craig: Never, but also just yelled. Just a lot of yelling.

John: Wants to know like the air quality a lot for who knows why.

Craig: Also, here’s a transcript of everything they’ve said for the past five years. They do hear everything.

John: Apparently, how these systems were supposed to work is that only when they hear the trigger word, then they start paying attention to what comes after it. That’s how they’re supposed to work.

Craig: Supposed to.

John: Supposed to. It’s a thing I just had to learn to live with like that.

Craig: You sort of go for it. Last question about home automation. I’d love to hear from some of our listeners who are super gear heads who have like really wired their homes up because I feel like there’s some great total solution. This will do it all, because instead of this patchwork of products, maybe I’m wrong. Your Nest thermostats. Do you have the latest Nest thermostats?

John: We don’t. We have ones we’ve had for years and they’re fine.

Craig: I was looking at the latest ones. I can’t tell really what’s different about them other than that they look somewhat cooler. They also look slightly like HAL from 2001, which is unnerving.

John: It’s not the best. I’m curious to hear from our listeners because I also think there’s a sweet spot where it’s like the amount of home automation we have is like it’s useful but not a pain in the ass. I’m never against it. There’ve been other times along the way where we’ve tried to do things that were a little bit fancier and it’s like, “Oh, God.” In the old house, we had a home theater system where the projector would drop down from the ceiling and there was a screen that came down. It was always a nightmare. It was maybe a 20% chance it would work properly the first time, and you’re not helping yourself that way.

Craig: I’m open to it. I would love something that would be– the dream is something integrated where there’s one thing that is running the door, the lights, the thermostats. I’m not sure what else there, the gate.

John: Things like your sprinklers, things like that, yes.

Craig: Sprinklers.

John: The pool pump.

Craig: The sprinklers– and yes, sure. There is an app for the pool pump that I have and I just never look at it because to me, the pool pump belongs to the pool people that come and maintain it. The sprinklers belong to the gardeners who come and maintain that. Now, if I were working on that stuff myself, if I weren’t such a dandy lad, yes, I would want to have all of it integrated would be– that would be the dream.

John: Cool. Thanks, guys.

Links:

  • The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White
  • The Conundrum of the Workshops by Rudyard Kipling
  • OpenAI’s controversial Sora is finally launching today. Will it truly disrupt Hollywood? by Wendy Lee for LA Times
  • I Went to the Premiere of the First Commercially Streaming AI-Generated Movies by Jason Koehler
  • A timeline of the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and search for his killer by Michael R. Sisal and Cedar Attanasio for Associated Press
  • How do you license a fortune teller? by Paul Debole
  • An I.V.F. Mix-Up, a Shocking Discovery and an Unbearable Choice by Susan Dominus for NYT Magazine
  • Monsters, Aliens, and Holes in the Ground by Stu Horvath
  • Your Consciousness Can Connect With the Whole Universe by Manasee Wagh for Popular Mechanics
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on BlueSky, Threads, Instagram, and Mastodon
  • Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (30)
  • 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 (88)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (66)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (492)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (90)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (119)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (178)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.