Favorite screenplays

free stats

Heads up, people: when I get done analyzing the screenplays of Steven Spielberg’s movies (hey, I’ve only got nine more to go!) I plan to move on to general analysis of some of my favorite screenplays. Some of these screenplays are universally acknowledged as masterworks of the form, others are simply my personal favorites, screenplays that, for one reason or another, changed my understanding of what a screenplay is, or could be. There are many, many screenplays I admire that are not on this list, primarily because when I think of those movies, I think of the movie first and the screenplay second. A movie like, say, 8 1/2, I think of first as a triumph of filmmaking and secondarily as a work of screenwriting. A movie like Alien has a very strong script and is a wonderful motion picture, but didn’t open my eyes the way that its sequel did. A movie like Seven has a solid script and a phenomenally talented director who really elevated it into another realm. These movies, for me anyway, are more successes of interpretation than of writing, whereas the movies on my list below I think would have been excellent, or at least watchable, no matter who was directing them. A few of them I admire in spite of, or because of, their flaws. All of them are movies I keep coming back to in order to steal things draw inspiration.

In the order their DVDs happen to be in on my shelf:

Aliens
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Hannah and Her Sisters
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Husbands and Wives
Deconstructing Harry
All the President’s Men
Boogie Nights
Bambi
Ben-Hur
Winter Light
Persona
Shame
Le Femme Nikita
Raising Arizona
Barton Fink
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
The Man Who Wasn’t There
No Country for Old Men
Diabolique
Die Hard
Die Hard with a Vengeance
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Unforgiven
Fatal Attraction
The Fugitive
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Groundhog Day
It’s a Wonderful Life
Jacob’s Ladder
Down by Law
Mystery Train
2001: A Space Odyssey
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
Seven Samurai
The Hidden Fortress
High and Low
Sanjuro
The Bourne Identity
Dog Day Afternoon
Network
The Untouchables
Things Change
The Edge
The Mask of Zorro
The Matrix
Mona Lisa
Ocean’s 11
(2001)
One Hour Photo
Floating Weeds
Primer
The Poseidon Adventure
Rosemary’s Baby
Ringu
Snatch
Robocop
Run Lola Run
Taxi Driver
The King of Comedy
Cape Fear
Casino
The Silence of the Lambs
A Simple Plan
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
E.T.
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
The Sting
Terminator 2
The Thomas Crown Affair
Three Kings
Sunset Blvd
Some Like it Hot
The Apartment
Beauty and the Beast
The Lion King
Toy Story
Finding Nemo

And I’m sure there are more that are escaping my mind at the moment. Some of these I’ve already discussed in detail — specifically, the Coens and the Spielbergs — and I invite interested parties to seek out those entries in the index to your left. As always, I invite my readers to goad my imagination with their suggestions.

Screenwriting 101: a tale of two beginnings

With regards to yesterday’s animated discussion of prologues:free stats

I was in my local video store the other day. I found a copy of Oliver Stone’s 2004 bio-pic Alexander for $3. My wife is a sucker for ancient Greek history and I’m a sucker for biographical drama and I said “that’s my price!” and snapped it up. I took it home, put it in the machine, and what do you know? It starts with an elaborate prologue! About the history of ancient Greece!

Now Stone understands that this is complicated stuff and that the audience isn’t likely to know about any of it. He also knows that having a bunch of words against a black screen isn’t going to help.

So instead, he goes in the exact opposite direction with equally disastrous results. First, there is an elaborate death scene where we see someone, we’re guessing Alexander (although Stone does not show us his face) dying, having not made an important decision of some sort. Everyone around the bed pleads with the dying man as strong winds blow outside and the dying man stares wildly and flails his hands and then expires. Before we have any idea what the hell that was all about, Stone then jumps forward 40 years, after Alexander’s empire has collapsed, and there’s Anthony Hopkins in a toga on a balcony near the harbor at Alexandria (we can tell it’s Alexandria because we can see the Lighthouse of Alexandria in the background) telling a scribe the story of Alexander, but not about the mysterious death scene we just watched. We’re still waiting to find out what was going on during the death scene and Hopkins is giving us a history lesson.

Now, Stone doesn’t want to give us a history lesson so he renders the dialogue through Hopkins’s character, a guy who apparently worked alongside Alexander, although we don’t know how or in what manner. Hopkins speaks of Alexander with great love, so we get that Alexander was apparently loved, but the rest of it is still just a history lesson about a bunch of people we haven’t met yet. Hopkins wanders around his back porch overlooking the harbor, and the porch is covered with Greek statuary that Hopkins fondles as he walks past. We’re supposed to be taking notes on his history lesson, but instead we’re wondering who Hopkins is and why he’s telling us all this and why he’s got a back porch covered with statuary.

After he’s wandered around his back porch for a while, Hopkins then heads inside, where there is what looks to be an Alexander Museum in his living room. There are more statues, and elaborate displays and maps and mosaics. Hopkins launches into some serious history here gesturing to this statue and that map, telling us all the same things we would have read in the text-on-black version, but instead of understanding the information we’re more lost than ever, because we’re still wondering what the death scene was all about and then we’re wondering who Hopkins is supposed to be (since he’s obviously not the elderly Alexander) and we’re wondering why he’s telling someone the story of Alexander and we’re wondering why he’s walking around his Alexander Museum gesturing to things that the guy he’s talking to already knows about. We’re now about ten minutes into the movie and we’re still waiting for it to start.

Then, just as we’re catching up to whatever the heck Anthony Hopkins is talking about, we jump back in time and now Alexander is alive and well and he’s in a tent somewhere in a desert just before a big battle of some kind against some Persians, and he’s making battle plans with his team of generals. And we think “Finally! The movie’s starting!” But no. Instead of getting some drama, we get yet another history lesson, as Alexander tells his generals all about the upcoming battle and how they’re going to win it. We don’t know where we are, why we’re fighting, who anyone in the tent is or what is at stake, we’re just getting Alexander lecturing his generals on strategy.  

yesterday mentioned the “As you know, Bob” problem in narratives, and that’s what this scene is, one big long “As you know, Bob” scene. Except it’s worse, because there’s, like, six of them, and their names aren’t Bob, they’re Ptolemy and Hephaistion and Cassander and Antigonus. So you’ve got Alexander walking around the map room pointing at things and saying things like “As you know, Antigonus, you are my most trusted warrior…” These lines are there so that the Greek scholars in the house can nod in understanding and say “Aha, so that’s Antigonus, got it…” but the rest of us are just burdened with more and more information we have no idea what to do with. The scene is supposed to help us understand the big battle scene we’re about to see, but it does the opposite. Because we’re still wondering about the death scene and who Anthony Hopkins was and why he has an Alexander Museum in his living room and who all these people in the tent are supposed to be and the movie is already 15 or 20 minutes along.

We finally head out into the big battle scene, and it is very big indeed — enormous, sprawling, ridiculously elaborate. It is, in fact, so elaborate that each section of the army gets its own title card so we know where we are in the battle. Unfortunately, we’re still not following any of it because we couldn’t follow the strategy session in the tent earlier. So now there’s a hugely chaotic battle sequence featuring tens of thousands of extras in period battle gear, but we don’t know what the objective is or who they are really or what they’re fighting for or why any of this is important.

Compare this to the opening of Saving Private Ryan.

Saving Private Ryan opens with an old man in a military cemetery in France with his family. One shot of one French flag tells us we’re in France. The old man comes to a field of gravestones and collapses in tears. There is no dialogue, no museum, no scrolling text, no narrator telling us about the history of World War II, no newsreel catchingus up to the story so far, no history lesson, no room of generals discussing strategy and reminding each other of things they already know. There is an old man who is grief-stricken at the sight of a field of gravestones and that’s it.

Then, we cut to the past, where an army captain is on a boat with a bunch of other soldiers and is about to storm a beach. We think the captain is the younger version of the old man at the cemetery (the narrative, it turns out, hinges on this deliberate misdirect). The men on the boat are terrified and nauseous and the captain’s hands are shaking. A title card tells us that it’s June 6. 1944 and that we’re at Omaha Beach. It doesn’t say that it’s D-Day, an important turning point in World War II, nothing tells us who the soldiers are fighting, or why this beach is important — and it doesn’t matter. What matters is the simple physical predicament of the protagonist. The captain in the boat has a bunch of men in his charge and it’s his job to get them up the beach and kill the enemy. And that’s it. He gives no speech about the glories of freedom or the evils of Nazism, the information he gives them is technical and sparse. The tension is palpable, the concerns are immediate and physical, not historical and philosophical. Then, the front of the boat drops down and half the men in the boat are slaughtered by sniper fire, and the ensuing 25 minutes of insane, mind-shattering carnage go on to become the greatest battle sequence ever shot and one of the great opening sequences of all time. We still don’t know who anybody is (except that the captain is Tom Hanks and we like Tom Hanks), there is no dialogue where the captain says to a soldier “As you know, Billy, you are my most accurate sniper…” The captain and his team that we will follow through the rest of the movie are revealed solely by their actions.

Oliver Stone sincerely thought he was doing us a favor by giving us all this complicated information about the history of Alexander before we ever got a look at the guy, and he thought he was demonstrating his generosity and good will toward the audience by dramatising the exposition instead of just putting some text up on the screen. But instead he shot his movie in the foot before it even got started, he drew the exposition out to painful lengths and made us more confused than ever. We don’t learn anything from Stone’s prologue, our minds check out after the first minute and by the tenth minute we’ve forgotten why we came to see the movie. Spielberg knew that none of that matters — cinema is about the here and now, the simple physical predicament of the protagonist.

UPDATE:

 points out in the comments that Alexander and Saving Private Ryan describe two different historical scenarios, one of which the audience might be expected to be familiar with, the other not so much.  I will go further: the two movies belong to two different genres — Alexander is a biographical drama and Saving Private Ryan is a war movie — and so perhaps should not be judged side by side.  Fair enough, let’s compare an apple to an apple.  Alexander begins with its elaborate history lesson and Schindler’s List begins with its protagonist getting dressed for a night on the town — again, little historical context (we know only that Jews are being concentrated into cities), no scroll of text, no narrator telling us who these people are, just the immediate physical concerns of the protagonist — he’s getting dressed up for a night on the town — we never even see his face! — and his ensemble is complete when he places his Nazi pin on his lapel.  The sequence that follows — Schindler impressing the local Nazi officers at the nightclub — lays out the information we need to know about Schindler and nothing else.  The result is that for the first 20 minutes of Schindler we lean forward, wanting to know more about the protagonist and what he’s after, whereas the first 20 minutes of Alexander make us lean back, wanting to get out of this classroom.