Day 3 Assignment – BAGGER VANCE

[David Moe]

Insights/breakthroughs – the word that comes to mind after watching this clip several times is Mystery. There is something mysterious, not coincidental, about the introduction. There is a mythical tone that is established early and one gets the feeling that this tale is indeed a legend How Bagger emerges from the darkness with a plausible quip that introduces him as a savvy character. He arrives at just the right time to help Matt Damon’s character. He has the right amount of credibility to gain trust, and when he comments about the last time he saw a shot like that was in 1916, there is an implied history, like they are destined or have a bond or connection — more mystery. The breakthrough for me is to ensure a memorable entrance, consistent with the overall theme. Here, it’s a legendary entrance where Bagger Vance emerges from the ether, like a fallen angel on a mission to save a specific soul. More nuanced than a bolt of lightening and entirely plausible, which fits the tone of the story. They somehow need each other, although it’s not clear yet if Bagger’s need is just from guaranteed employment or something more. All this helps maintain the mystery and ‘legendary’ tone of the story.

[Sandeep Gupta]

you are right, i didn’t think of it as a mystery-reveal which it clearly is nearly every beat!

[Nick Bandouveris]

I agree with you 100%, and yet also assert that it does it in the most cliched, hamfisted way.

[Jim]

INSIGHT: the use of my Protagonist’s dialogue to tease what the audience will want to see later in the film.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by  Jim.

[Sandeep Gupta]

huh, now i am more obsessed with seeing this film.

[Nick Bandouveris]

There’s a vast chasm between a tease and telegraphing the obvious. Way too heavy handed for me, even though I readily agree that all the “right” notes of how to construct a screenplay are met here.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Nick Bandouveris.

[Paul McGregor]

Assignment Week 1 – Day 3

Where is Junah coming from?

Junah is coming from defeat and disappointment. He is trying to get “back in the game” and is working with determination, and alone, to do so.

Where is Bagger Vance coming from?

Bagger Vance literally comes from nowhere, emerging out of the night. He arrives with an intimate knowledge of golf and of Junah’s past. He appears as a beggar, literally looking for a free lunch, but he has much more to offer Junah.

In a way they are mirror images of one another. Junah has all the golf gear and is making lousy strokes, while Bagger Vince even denies ever playing golf yet makes a brilliant stroke.

What drama was this scene built around?

A man, at night, hitting golf balls into the distance. A man emerging from the shadows, carrying a suitcase. The gradual revelation of Bagger Vance’s knowledge of the game, starting with, “No, I don’t play golf,” to his making a superb stroke. The gradual discovery that Bagger Vance knows more than he’s letting on, when he refers to the 1916 championship.

What traits showed up in these two character’s words and actions?

Junah: Determined (he’s practising his swing late into the night); lacks self-confidence (“I’ve done things that made less sense.”); impatient (“Are you going to hit the ball, or are you going to dance with it?”)

Bagger Vance: Self-deprecating (“No, I don’t play golf.”); wise and philosophical (“A man’s grip on his club is like his grip on his world.”); good reader of personality (He provokes Junah with his question, “Are you a golfer?”)

Insights: It can make it more entertaining when a character is gradually discovered, the way we discover Bagger Vance.

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Paul, you always catch traits that at least i have missed!

[Sandeep Gupta]

What makes this writing create great characters are many things. Mentioned last but in no way least can be explained best by using the Level One/Two definitions of this lesson, detailed in the first breakthrough below.

(My answer is premised on context constructed by the story on Wikipedia, IMDb, and the setup description this assignment. If it is wrong, kind folks please let me know. In any case I will come back and revise this after I find the movie.)

JUNUH arrives as a Level 2 character. From what I can guess he has been introduced, his conflict has probably been limned well and escalated, and it is clear he is more inhibited and in the dark about his own motive — that he wants to play and win the tournament. The stakes are as high as can be for a man not experiencing lower two Maslow crises that he survived.

He can win the love of his life back. He can help his town by his local connection to people who think of him as a hero and will come to root for him, and that would also help ADELE’s family. Whether he wins, wins her back or not, the former or latter each alone is enough motivation, and enpugh pressure to kill him from humiliation if he doesn’t have his swing back.

Finally, I mean my last observations at the moment, he loves the game. Purely guessing from the narratives mentioned above, Junuh is perhaps dealing with both survivor’s guilt¹ and war trauma. Maybe he feels that for him to be as happy as he would be on the golf-course would be disrespectful to the company that didn’t make it back with him. Heck, he is even grimacing on the driving range with those perfect swings. OK maybe he arched his upper back a little, but the rest of it, you know is the story.

¹ why do them dumbniks call it guilt!? survivors’ burden would be a helpful word instead of wounding them even more in the name of therapy.

VANCE who demolishes all the above, or at least the “darkness” is ab init nothing but an unimpressive, annoyingly reckless man ambling en scene. Until we realize he’s not only careful, astute, and smart, he’s a gentleman, then he’s a caddy trying to maybe make a buck, then well maybe a bit arrogant, but OKay man’s got game too, and then only to find him knock it out of the park with “1916.” L1 to L2 in five minutes or less. Anyone know where this script PDF is? It will be fun to know what these boys do next.

Way to milk character backstory design, Steven and Jeremy.

Insights
The second supportive breakthrough mentioned below practically causes a deep epiphany for Junuh, causing a breakthrough for him — he has more than validation with Vance’s punchline. A shot through the darkness breaks through it with Vance’s 1916 reference, now that he can visualize himself doing it again. Insight, because this seems to expand on the IBV model use for characters as well.

Vance has a validation too at that moment, he has delivered a coup de grace on the darkness. He has no breakthroughs, I think. He came already knowing everything at the onset and more he hasn’t told us yet.

One subsidiary insight — even when validations are collaborative towards a goal for both of them, they may not even be resonant, forget the same. Which means audience identifying with either character will get closer to their chosen one. And just because a character does not have a breakthrough, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t catalyze one. Guess classic mentor archetype is there most of the time.

Breakthroughs
As just described, L2 Characters don’t need to arrive as L2. They can appear L1 to the audience, and then elevate themselves to L2.

For one, I had not thought of L1/L2 characterization. A supporting, and perhaps even independent breakthrough — seeding admiration, life-experience, information, and helpful connection to the past, that hadn’t occurred to me as this useful a tool either.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: threw in a couple of words, for the same price

[Chris Spizuoco]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on character development in the story we’ve been discussing. While I appreciate your input, I have a different perspective on some of the points you raised. Allow me to provide my response and offer an alternative viewpoint.

You mentioned that the Level One/Two definitions of character development play a crucial role in creating great characters. While I agree that understanding the levels of character development can be helpful, it’s important to note that not all characters need to arrive as Level 2 from the beginning. Characters can indeed start at Level 1 and evolve throughout the story, which can be a compelling narrative technique.

Regarding JUNUH, you stated that he arrives as a Level 2 character based on your interpretation of the story’s context. However, it’s crucial to base our analysis on accurate information. I recommend revisiting the movie or reliable sources like IMDb to ensure our understanding aligns with the actual narrative.

Additionally, you mentioned Junuh’s motivations and conflicts, such as winning back the love of his life, helping his town, and dealing with survivor’s guilt and war trauma. These elements certainly contribute to his character development and provide motivation. However, it’s important to delve deeper into how these aspects are portrayed in the story and how they shape his actions and choices.

Regarding VANCE, you described him as initially unimpressive and reckless, but later reveal his careful, astute, and intelligent nature. While it’s interesting to analyze his character journey, it’s crucial to provide specific examples or scenes from the story to support your claims.

Furthermore, you mentioned the concept of breakthroughs and how they impact characters. While breakthrough moments can be powerful in character development, it would be beneficial to provide concrete examples from the story to illustrate these breakthroughs effectively.

In conclusion, I appreciate your insights, but it would be helpful to provide specific examples and evidence from the narrative to support your observations. It’s essential to base our analysis on accurate information and provide a clear connection between our interpretations and the story itself.

Thank you for your contribution to the group, and I look forward to further discussions and insights.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Chris, thank you for explaining it in so much detail, you are so very right, Vance is not an L1 character. from the scene we know only L1 level details at his entry where he is actually very smart. just that we are thinking it’s some dude walking where he might get hit hard in the dark. those things pack a punch really, but he has himself covered already. let’s say i was L1 about him. regarding my impressions, perhaps Eisenstein can convince you they were sincere. lastly the conflict in Junuh head is well established, which is what i saw as L2. you don’t have to see it my way. if possible, just be patient with people like me, i am not that quick and not everyone can go see every movie they want. ignore us.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: typo aleady : D

[Jim]

Sandeep,

In all my years as a writer, I never heard of Level 1 and Level 2 characters. Where did you find these definitions?

[Sandeep Gupta]

Jim, Cheryl/Hal’s notes for this very lesson have this new definition of character types up top. It is actually also the first “dynamic” classification I have seen for characters, so I went to town with it in the assignment. Most character “types” (not archetypes) are static, even if important, they all miss what this one does — make you intensify the words by a backstory.

[Jim]

Sandeep,

Can you be more specific as to which lesson Cheryl/Hal couplerefer to character levels? I reread the first two lessons and see no mention of it.

[Sandeep Gupta]

oh, sorry bro, by this very class i meant Week 1, Day 3 the section on Character Design, in same lesson on Junuh and Vance.

[Jim]

Sandeep,

Are you confusing the watch video suggestions – watch the 1st time and watch the 2nd time – as descriptions of the importance of a character in your story? I think they are levels of viewing what is being revealed, not Character Levels. Now I understand why I had never heard those terms regarding characters in a story. The terms usually used are Major and Minor characters.

[Sandeep Gupta]

i am definitely missing some depth compared to you, my name is almost French “sans deep,” and that’s why i am here. here’s all I have time to offer to you. they are both certifiably L2 characters. their intro is clevery managed to play upon our perception and turned on its head by the championship reference. best …

[Jim]

Again, do you mean Minor characters? Because they are definitely Major characters. And also again, I have never heard references to Level 1 and/or Level 2 characters in the industry. I guess if you understand what you mean that is enough.

[James Hayden]

Junah’s flaw is his inability to reconcile the past and move on. He hasn’t considered his past defeat or disappointments as a golfer. The writer’s approach to golf is an analogy for life and Bagger serves as the perfect character to help Junah begin to see, learn and trust this process.

Junah is defeated and afraid to relive his past pain and heartbreak. He also is unhappy for this same reason.

Junah is curious as to who Bagger is and whether or not he is credible. Offering or demanding that Bagger show him his swing gives Junah a better understanding as to whether this figure, who appears out of the dark, is worthy of any more of his time. This is especially telling and important considering the fact that they are in the South during the height of Jim Crow. Junah’s willingness to accept Bagger’s advice, jabs, philosophy, and eventual credibility potentially speaks to his lack of racial bias and open-mindedness.

Bagger almost immediately speaks about golf and a player’s approach toward golf in philosophical, poetic, and reverential terms. His language seems to resonate with Junah, and all at once, for the viewer/reader and Junah, we are swept up in the majesty of the game from a deeply personal and introspective manner.

This scene is yet another example of knowing your character’s future. The audience instantly can feel these two will forge an alliance and compete in the tournament, which is a perfect pathway for Junah’s heroic journey.

[Nick Bandouveris]

All very good points. I’ll add to this that Junah’s instant offer to Bagger, even though he’s a stranger who mysteriously walks out of some “Field of Dreams” cornfield scenario, is a lovely character trait/beat which shows he doesn’t consider color a personal issue, even in Jim Crow south.

My only quibble here is that, not only does the character of Bagger magically know his future, and that of Junah, the screenplay so heavily feeds it to us that it telegraphs the coming plot to the viewer – thus deflating conflict, drama, suspense, instead putting us on a well-trod road.

Contrast this to the Robert Redford movie “The Natural.” The movie played out as expected, a devil on one shoulder, an angel on the other, temptation the main character eschews and comes out the winner, smashing the lights with the Best Home Run Ever. While this sells popcorn, there’s little or no expectation to be defeated. Bernard Malamud’s novel, by contrast, goes much darker and though not a happy “Hollywood Ending” the studio and Redford insisted on to get it filmed, Redford’s character takes the money and throws the game. No one saw that coming.

I’m not saying write “negative” screenplays. But I do urge us to not shine our brights onto the well worn road. It’s the potholes that make this type of journey fun and worthwhile.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Nick Bandouveris.

[James Hayden]

BAGGER CONT. Pre – Postitis!

My Breakthrough moment is in the dialogue’s seamless hint of Bagger being some sort of mythical character with insight into Junah. His introduction in the night, out of the shadows, self-possessed with confidence and ability, provides intrigue and mystery. I don’t recall if the writer ever addresses Bagger’s otherwordly persona. I do recall feeling satisfied that there was a bit of an open-ended resolution to allow for a bit of self-interpretation. In other words, the writer respected the viewer’s intellect and didn’t bludgeon us with one-the-nose dialogue or exposition.

[Deb Johnson]

1st time:

Where is Junah coming from?

Frustrated

Impatient

Angry

Where is Bagger Vance coming from?

Out of the night

At complete ease

Interrupting

Looking for harmony

What makes them right for their roles in this movie?

Junah is frustrated and though he’s lost his swing and given up – he still can’t give it up.

Bagger Vance seems to handle Junah with ease and finesse. Offers to be his caddie. Reveals he knows who Junah is. Shows that he knows the game of golf. Encourages Junah to find his swing. Junah finds it.

This is the balance – someone who is very close to giving up is met by someone who can help him keep going and do better.

2nd Time:

What drama was this scene built around?

The scene was built upon the drama of Junah hitting golf balls – frustrated over his poor shots. It’s interesting that Bagger Vance comes up right in the middle of his play (not from behind)… putting himself in “danger”. Yet – he comments that – the way Junah was playing – there was no danger.

Character Traits:

Junah

Cursing/Frustrated

Hospitable

Defeated

Honest – upfront

Lost his swing

Bagger

Enjoys God’s nature

Philosophical ‘ “rhythm of the game just like the rhythm of life.”

Indirect in his approach

Good at/Knows the game of golf

Looking for Harmony

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks for keeping the traits train on track between you and Paul, Deb! i had forgotten to notice new trait reveals as we go further, were part of the escalation.

[Susan Barber]

Breakthrough: identifying the different backgrounds my characters are coming from and why conflict will be inevitable.

What I learned is the importance of setting the correct, intimate moment when two characters are introduced to the audience. Understanding where each character is coming from (from pain, distrust or supreme confidence, for example) allows the writer to introduce the strengths and frailties of the characters.

[J.R Riddle]

Where is Junah coming from? Junah is a lost soul. He has fallen from Grace, lost his confidence and escapes into booze, disengaged from life. PTSD has Junah’s name next to it since with war ended. The war goes on for Junah. Once a famous golfer, Junah has lost his golf swing along with his former great attitude. He has no insight, foresight or future with or without golf. But he’s hitting balls in the dark into nowhere, (kind of asking for help from the darkness) and that does happen. Negatively practicing his swing, his anger, his contempt for himself and life is prevalent. Junah is a loser, until Baggar saunters out of the dark night from nowhere and answers Junah’s unknown cry for help. Until Junah offers food to Baggar, he’s quick tempered and totally unlikeable. That demonstrates some depth of the pre-war likable Junah, who possesses a good, generous and empathetic heart.

Baggar Vance appears out of nowhere, coming from some unknown place, out of the darkness, a void. He appears knowing everything important to know about Junah. This is a great scene, infers that he’s the one to lead Junah back into the Light. He knows unknown and known, before being asked or told.

Baggar has the insight to see the past, present and future of Junah. I believe that he is a mystical angel or from some other dimension to encourage Junah into living and loving again. To me, this is the Grace of God sent due to Junah’s war courage. Baggar points to the right choices for Junah’s golf match, but a metaphor regaining his mojo for living full-out again. Baggar isn’t greedy, wanting $5. instead of a possible $1000. He’s pragmatic in his approach with Junah, and enticing him to choose wisely, first by choosing him as his caddy after Baggar stripes the ball into the unseen darkness. Baggar shows a smiling wisdom; Junah’s opposite, a wise-guy spouting arrogant jests. Baggar humbly reacts to everything with a smiling, doesn’t-matter-to-me attitude – your choice, your game, your life.

What makes them right for this movie? Both men are very good looking, that makes them even on that premise. Both are dynamic, interesting characters, showing strength through different and opposite behaviors. They initially conflict on most everything. Their personal attitudes and behaviors continues the conflict through most of the script. This is key to writing and having an engaging script, a quick read to the finishing page.

[J.R Riddle]

The 2nd time watching:

The drama was built around Savor/Victim caused by pain/anger leftover from war. Junah’s Soul is conflicted. His past drives his negative lifestyle.

Traits?

Junah: weak, angry, indecisive, victimized, arrogant, empathetic, honest, witty, sarcastic

Baggar: mystical, witty, humble, unselfish, thought-provoking, all-knowing, helpful

[Lawrence Fraly]

WATCH 1ST TIME

Junah is coming from defeat, but pushing through, trying to find his deeper self that’s buried under a barrage of surface demands and bloodletting.

Bagger literally comes out of the darkness, like a phantasm.

RIGHT FOR THEIR ROLES:

Junah is a former champion, who no longer believes he’s a champion, or at least says so to others. To himself, driving shots off the tee in the night, he’s fighting to come back. He’s got the champion’s determination, and the erosion of self esteem from having been beaten down away from the golf course, and burdened with too much self-awareness keeping him from letting his self find its natural playfulness. One does, after all, “play” sports.

Bagger Vance is perfect for his role because he’s loose, playful, and knows Junah’s history. As caddie, he goes from being an interrupter/obstruction, to mentor and guide.

WATCH 2ND TIME

Drama Junah trying to get his swing in the dark where no one can see him and he can’t see the results of his shots. There’s a match coming up that he says he’s not going to play in, but, as Bagger points out, Junah’s fighting with himself to get ready to compete.

Traits Junah is determined, frustrated, polite even though Bagger keeps interrupting him, generous and trusting when he offers Bagger to go in the house and eat though they’ve never met before. Junah is also burdened by rules, as shown by his explanation that caddie’s get 10%, not the $5 that Bagger asks for.

Bagger is aware of the deeper self. He lives like a dream, without limitations, without rational thought controlling his life. He’s humble, yet confident. Kind and playful.

In other posters to the forum, I gained insights into level of character development and revealing a character gradually.

One thing I just now happened to think of is that these two characters reveal each other through indirect dialogue focused around a very specific action (hitting the ball). So simple, I don’t know how I missed that until going through other postings and thinking differently about the scene.

[Karyn Laitis]

Character Mastery: Week 1, Day 3—Bagger Vance

Karyn Laitis

· Where is Junah coming from?

Junah is carrying his own baggage (WW1) with some anger (self) and self-doubt. His approach to hitting a golf ball is an “approach to life” metaphor. He’s just hitting golf balls into the night without regard for where they are going. The sound of the hit is muffed—either a hook, slice or straight flub. He not hitting a clean shot, yet he doesn’t seem like he’s committed to hitting his best.

· Were is Bagger Vance coming from?

Bagger Vance is an enigmatic character, suddenly appearing out of the darkness of the woods. He seems He seems very perceptive and understanding of Junah’s dilemmas with golf and life lessons.

· What makes them right for their roles in this movie?

The characters are at opposite ends of the continuum except for the love of golf which provides their common ground. Baggar Vance is a “Mr. Miyagi” to Junah.

· What drama was the scene built around?

The scene set up the personality of Junah and introduced Baggar Vance was perceptive, using golf as a metaphor for life. The golfer’s approach to the game and hitting the ball Baggar Vance being an enigmatic character with observations and advice to create a tournament winner.

· What traits showed up in the two characters:

o Junah

§ Privilege

§ Compassionate

§ Curious

§ Self-doubting

§ Competitive

§ Demons from the past

o Baggar Vance Traits

§ Illusive

§ Perceptive

§ Generous

§ Mentor

[Trish Carothers]

LESSON 3 – WEEK 1

Bagger Vance: Comes out of the darkness, perhaps the deep area of his own psyche. What makes this character great is his sense of humor – catches more worms, his persistence in attaining his goal…hired by Junah, his obvious expertise with a golf club, his sartorial presentation – his best self, presented and his respect for himself, and his impertability, he knows that he knows, he wants to help Junah, and the evidence that he can spot a problem and fix it.

Junah: Is coming from failure. Which shows up in his golfing and his attitude. He is behaving like a loser. What makes this character great is his lack of clothes sense – he isn’t dressing like a success – his mood has affected even his clothing and the viewer knows immediately that he’s just playing. His “swing” is off, and no matter how many balls he hits, it’s off. He isn’t even listening to the sound of the club hitting the ball, otherwise he would be doing something different. He’s just out there passing time. After some time and interaction, he crankily forces Bagger to handle the golf club but then he is convinced that Bagger has wisdom and hires him-a smart move.

[Nick Bandouveris]

Late to the party – catching up from some hectic time-consuming work.

I can’t say that I think this is a “great” character, though I haven’t seen the movie. I wish I’d had the perspective to have first seen this on the page, prior to knowing the casting, because the actors get in the way of analysis, for me. It’s highly “problematic,” though not in the likely assumed sense.

While the character lives up to the two precepts listed at the top of the assignment, I don’t find it original or well done – or even with a “voice,” other than “Oscar Bait.”

Even a pre-slap Will Smith in this role feels anachronistic. The eagerness to please on the part of the character is, for me, pushed way too far by Smith’s own need to do so, evident in so many of his roles. There’s a quote which I believe can be attributed to Lawrence Olivier, about “the actor too much in love with themselves.” The meaning – when the actor pierces the veil between actor and character to the point of reducing suspension of disbelief – it’s a bad thing.

The same goes for Matt Damon, though in this scene he’s less guilty of thespian grandstanding. Perhaps this is the curse of Hollywood – to get a script made, you need familiar/famous actors, who, by their presence, can tip the scales away from storytelling and more towards fandom. No offense to Smith fans, but Sam Jackson would have hit the ball much farther, to put spin on a clumsy metaphor.

If box office can be an indicator, Moviegoers have shown that they go to Will Smith movies to see him punch aliens, not dole out bromides.

I can’t help thinking – what if both characters were instead white? What if both were black? In either cast that would certainly remove the “Magical Negro” stereotype this movie seems to be resuscitating. No matter how many times we (fallaciously) declare we live in a “post racial” world, there’s a heavy weight of history, injustice, prejudice, and inflamed emotions, inherent in the American psyche, “even in these times,” of racial pairing. No matter the best intentions of the writer, there needs to be an honesty and avoidance of cliche, because the subject matter is too loaded to mess with. Were this only not so — but it’s a reality. I’m not saying don’t do it, but when you do, know that the road is dotted with landmines.

The Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills Cop movies were such an in-your-face exercise in defeating cliche and societal expectation because they downplayed race and color in a contemporary setting, because both the writing and acting defy cliched expectation. Morgan Freeman transcended all racial pitfalls of “magical” by acting such great writing so well. Django Unchained blew the hinges off the doors of expectation. Again, I admit to not knowing the Bagger Vance movie, but the writing sets dangerous traps which I’m betting lead to a “feel good ending” of “both characters learning about life from each other in ways they never expected.” Yawn.

These pitfalls are there for any “magical” character – think of the “mentally challenged” such as Forrest Gump or Chauncey Gardiner. According to any acolyte of Syd Field, these films, Bagger included, do nothing wrong. However, it’s low hanging fruit which I believe could be elevated by better character work which relied upon specifics of the person, rather than symbolic proclamations of Very Wise Avatars. I’m not saying don’t write such movies, but I am saying you need to bring an A+ game to such genres.

While “elegant” in a writerly sense, the entire scene is telegraphed by Bagger with little or no room for surprise, suspense, or actual conflict (we KNOW at the outset that they will become THE team to beat, If They Only Can Work Together). The three swings, each prefaced by a snipped of a life lesson and instant analysis of Damon’s character who has “lost his swing” (get it? GET IT???). And Damon’s Junah, predictably, swings once – bad, twice – bad, third – WOW! I would have been much more intrigued, and less “tipped off,” had there been an indication that Bagger needs, wants, must have that prize money. That the Damon character needs, wants, must have that “swing back.”

How much more fulfilling it is, comparing this training session, to Empire Strikes Back – where Yoda does mostly what Bagger does here, in teaching of the force, and the inherent power within Luke, and then Luke still can’t “perform” his Force miracle because – He Doesn’t Believe In Himself. It’s so powerful to see Yoda then lift the X-wing out of the swamp, and then, showing us that nothing is easy, expels a sigh betraying the feat’s great effort. That scene remains inspiring now, 40+ years later, on both a storytelling level, and as an example of screenwriting that doesn’t bow to expectation, but rather hews to its characters’ journeys.

Or maybe I do Bagger a disservice by comparing this to a training scene. It can also be though of as a Sales Pitch scene. Again, while hitting all the expected “notes” as Bagger tries to sell the vital service he will provide to Junah, I have to think of Mamet’s brilliant Glengarry, Glen Ross. There, we see Ricky Roma barraging life philosophy to the other guy at the bar. What becomes evident, as it spools out, however, is that the entire scene is a Sales Pitch. Both Bagger and GlenGarry scenes play out to the same conclusion, but it’s obvious which one benefits from writing that defies cliche.

I did have very high hopes at the beginning of the scene. Bagger telling Damon he walked straight ahead because the ball had no chance of hitting him was just straight up funny, and instantly tells us this is a wry character – so it is not only a great joke but a vital piece of the character puzzle. I wish there had been more of that, and the wisdom were leaned upon less heavily.

For me, the character work (though much improvised by the actors) by both Bill Murray and Chevy Chase in Caddyshack defeated any chance of cliche by being original, funny, irreverent, and unexpected. Think of Murray’s “international golfer” speech, or Chase’s high out of his mind revelry practicing on the green scenes.

Yes, I realize it may seem I’m comparing slapstick college comedy with Coming Of Age Importance, but I’m not. What I’m really comparing is the breath of life the great writer brings by giving us an original take on any character, thus doing their part to defeat the most hackneyed format.

So I have gratitude to y’all for asking us to think about this scene. It’s forced me to analyze my own writing – to see where dreaded cliches may linger rather than the actual LIFE of a character. I’m experimenting today with not only introducing racial complexities to a scene, but then seeing what happens by flipping them to see where I’m making wide assumptions rather than laser-focused individual character traits. This is already useful in making me look for places where I’m telling and not showing, and fix the holes.

I’m not a big believer in playing to the cheap seats – but as the Caddyshack example above demonstrates, an original character, even in a cliche situation, will likely be talked about it for years, while a scene such as the Bagger one might only survive as a useful example for a screenwriting class.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Late but not least my friend. Ton of insights in your essay.