-
Week 4 Day 3: Stacking Intrigue – JFK
1. Please watch this scene and provide your insights into what makes this scene great from a writing perspective.
2. Read the other writers comments and make notes of how you might use intriguing dialogue in your script.
3. Rethink or create an Intriguing Dialogue scene for your script using your new insights and rewrite the scene. Then post the answer to the question, “What I learned rewriting my scene…?” and post it in the 6 PM daily post here.
-
4 Replies
-
William Whelan – Stacking Intrigue
What I learned from doing this assignment is to stack intrigue in my screenplay
Scene arc: Walk in park where Chief explains what the protection for the president should have entailed, what actually was the protection and both men sit on a park bench and chief explains his theory of what happened and why/
Situation: Two men discuss JFK assignation in a park.
Conflict: Cover up of assassination vs. what happened.
Moving the story forward: The Chief tells Jim Garrison his theory on the assignation.
Entertainment value: Suspense and revelations of the Chiefs story.
Setups/payoffs: Actual events; Chief’s theory.
<ul type=”disc”>
- What makes this scene great?
The Chief’s story/theory.- How most of the questions and
statements cause intrigue. The Chief postulates a question and then gives
an answer based upon his theory of what actually happened.- Different forms of intriguing
lines. The Chief’s constant posing a question of what was not done and
answering his own with what should have been the proper security
precautions.- The effect of stacking a series
of intriguing statements on top of each other. Building suspense to the chief
revealing his theory of the assignation.- What are your insights into
intriguing dialogue and stacking intrigue? Very effective and
entertaining. - What makes this scene great?
-
What I learned rewriting my scene is to use a stacking series of intriguing statements, one on top of the other.
The scene is an investigation into the assassination of John F. Kennedy led by Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) questioning Chief of Special Ops, X, (Donald Sutherland).
The Chief stacks one reason upon the next as he poses a question of what was done to secure J.F.K.’s route and then explains what actually happened that ultimately made it so J.F.K. could not escape alive. Examples: Chief was deliberately sent on trip out of the country; the phones did not work; someone had told security to stand down that day, etc.
Intriguing lines:
Garrison-“I never knew Kennedy was such a danger to the establishment.”
Chief-“Why was Kennedy killed?” “Who benefited?”
“Who has the power to cover it up?”
What makes this scene great?
The constant barrage by the Chief of his theory of what did not happen and the building of suspense as he answers what should have been done to secure the safety of Kennedy. Riveting and entertaining scene using intriguing dialog and stacking intrigue.
-
The scene dismantles an established narrative and introduces a shadowy, covert layer to the story.
The setting places Jim Garrison in a meeting with Intelligence Officer X. The conversation unfolds as they walk along the path of The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. The Washington Monument can be seen in the background. This is a significant location to hold such a meeting. Also – the way Jim takes notes and listens, without interruption, gives credence to what X has to say.
X’s statements are carefully crafted to sow seeds of doubt and intrigue. He questions the standard narrative, pointing out discrepancies and violations of standard operating procedures. These deviations in Dallas were not just anomalies but indicative of a massive plot.
The use of archival footage adds another layer of engagement. The audience may be familiar with the footage, but the payoff comes as it aligns with X’s version, compelling viewers to reconsider what they thought they knew.
X stacks intrigue by moving on to invalidate the Oswald narrative. The mention of the missing Cabinet, a combat division in-route, and the inoperative phone system raises the stakes.
X methodically picks apart the known narrative and examines each piece to show the negligence and incongruity of the actions prior to, the day of and in the aftermath of the event. He continues to assert his theory in different ways… “an indication of a massive plot.” “Does it sound like a coincidence?” “Nothing was left to chance.”
The methodical breakdown of facts and the relentless questioning leave the audience hooked and eager to uncover the truth.
The final question posed by Jim Garrison encapsulates the culmination of stacked intrigue, leaving the audience on the edge of their seats, craving answers to the central mystery: “Why was Kennedy killed? Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?”
To create intriguing dialogue and stacking intrigue, you need to have an established narrative that needs to be examined from a different point of view. Each piece of the puzzle needs to be investigated and turned on its head, so the audience now questions what they thought they knew. It helps to have a neutral yet solid setting and a character, like Garrity, who is eager to find the truth and believe this new twist of the story.
-
This clip was an interesting barrage of facts that don’t fit together well: what happened, what should have happened, and how those things were prevented from happening. It was a lot of information, yet it flowed well and kept my interest because it came across as a puzzle that I needed to put together.
“Who” and “how” were explored well. “Why” is the element of intrigue that sets the stage for the rest of the story.
The banter of questions and answers flow steadily; there is no interjection of personal opinions. The viewer is left to create his own opinion. This conversation has a lot of facts to present. It also has mystery. Those two components, I suspect, must be present to create a stacked scene like this one. It ‘s also imperative that both parties are significantly invested in solving the mystery.
Log in to reply.