[Mary Dietz]

I’m giving a monologue to the spouse of the protagonist. He is about to murder their son. The monologue gives him an opportunity to trace the situations that have led him to this decision. He is obviously conflicted; his decision will have repercussions for generations to follow. It will estrange him from his wife. It challenges his integrity and calls into question nearly every other major decision he has made leading up to this moment.

He is speaking to his young son, trying to rationalize his intention and ensuring his son that he is still the greatest love in his life.

It is challenging to write. I gave it a shot. I will probably come back to edit it a few times yet.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Mary Dietz.

[Mary Dietz]

The monologue of personal experience gives a much deeper emotional element than Hooper’s scientific data about sharks. Seeing is believing, and Quint delivers a very detailed rendition of what he saw.

His experience informs the viewer that this hunter understands very well the stakes in his present venture. It also explains his passion for killing the shark. His statement of never wearing a life jacket again says he is willing to give his life in this fight.

Quint’s story being based on history tells the rest of the story the others may have already known. He gives facts that no one else seems to have made public–because they are horrific, and embarrassing to the government. He needs the drink he holds in his hand. Listening to this story gives the viewer an emotional reaction that they can identify with the chief’s fear. story and the close-up shots of Quint’s listeners reveal another aspect of each character’s profile: the inner battle they are fighting in approaching the monster shark.

[Mary Dietz]

I have a scene where the protagonist and antagonist meet for the first time. Both are trying to save lives: one politically, the other medically. The conversation takes place in the clinic treatment room. By drawing out the similarities of intention, the conversation humanizes the “villain” and gives a sense of how long the two characters will remain at odds. It poses the question of whether they may support each other in small ways or whether they will remain rigidly opposed.

[Mary Dietz]

My first impression was the irony of mental states: Mitch, the villain, is calm and collected; Frank, the honorable protector, is losing his footing. These characters have a history; they knew each other on the phone merely by voice recognition. Though in opposition with each other, both save lives, and both have the urge to kill. This raises the question in the viewer’s mind of who will walk away in the end, and who may lie dead.

While Mitch kindly saves Frank a lot of trouble by letting him know he is following up on the wrong person, he also stings Frank by asking if he is really committed to his work…or more to his personal safety. That’s not just a personal question. It conjures the question of what else will Mitch attempt if he knows that Frank is a feeble opponent. Subtext suggests that Mitch feels entitled to immunity from Frank since he saved his life. While Frank denies that possibility, he is left with the haunting question of whether he has the guts to do his duty.

I also find it ironic that the initiative for the call comes from Mitch. Isn’t it Frank who should be tracking Mitch? This creates a twist for the viewer. Now we need to question who is chasing whom?

[Mary Dietz]

I chose to work on a scene where the family must move away if they are to survive the famine. There is a battle between intention and resistance.

I’m using questions to reveal the details of what is being threatened at present; that also lets me express what other consequences can be experienced if the family stays. This also allows me to explore some of the dangers that may be encountered in the journey and immigration into the other country. The man is intentional, and the woman is resistant. This lets me explore this conversation with gender issues as well as survival issues.

Hopefully, this conversation will keep the viewer in suspense and wanting to know what actually happens, and it can also foreshadow some of what does happen. It definitely helps to outline the stakes of their final decision.

[Mary Dietz]

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.

[Mary Dietz]

Before this lesson, I was wondering how I could get more backstory and character profile into my story. This has helped a lot.

I’m rewriting a scene early in the story where the protagonist’s family is processing the death of a middle-aged family member. They need to make decisions about how to care for the children. I’m finding that exploring the differences between characters is more satisfying than focusing on what they hold in common. This one conversation can now stand as a firmer foundation on which to proceed with other dialogue and action.

[Mary Dietz]

I found this example fascinating. It was taking off masks. Dad enters as a therapist and finishes as Dad. Molly tries to hide but is forced/given the opportunity to ask the question she has dealt with for most of her life. Backstories give light to the differing attitudes. Flaws and wounds are exposed with explanations for their sources.

Dad approaches with his professional traits as a “head doctor”, and that works because Molly resents him as her father, not as a therapist. However, he reminds her that he is her dad, and he takes that relationship very seriously, even to the point of vengeance for those (other than him) who caused her harm. In both roles he commands the upper hand until Molly consoling him shows her strength, probably practiced through the pain of her resentment for her father.

The three minute therapy clarified Molly’s needs. Molly responded to her father’s need by extending her embrace.

The writer sustained the tension and raised the stakes with each revelation, This was confrontation, not reading about each other.

[Mary Dietz]

I have two scenes in my script where the two main characters interact. First they come from different perspectives but find common ground to lay down a plan. Later in the story, after the plan has been fulfilled, the protagonist wants to change the outcome of the plan. The other character is now deeply invested in the plan’s result. The stakes are raised in whatever decision they come to.

Since these scenes are related, it gives me a much better opportunity to share the deeper reasons and emotions involved in each character’s stance. It emphases the importance of the plan of action, its consequences, and its meaning not only for the characters but also for the twist in the story.

[Mary Dietz]

This scene has a lot of opposition: fear vs. desperation, moral stance vs. anything for money, decision vs. indecision. The Dr.’s objections mean nothing to Martin because of his disregard for respect, acceptance of others and life itself. Martin’s real need for help traps the Dr.’s goal of helping people. The vast differences in perspectives sometimes result in humor. After the Dr.’s rejections and Martin’s persistence, the advice to attend the reunion moves the action forward.

Despite the disparity of perspectives, each character reveals their dilemma in a serious and character revealing manner. As a viewer, my heart went out to both of them. These were not stereotypes; they were believable, vulnerable men.

[Mary Dietz]

I thought about writing a specific scene using this technique but chose instead to introduce a few of my scenes that involve a change of venue–completely foreign to the protagonist. Seeing the environment, people, and cultural action from the eyes of the protagonist will give the viewer a chance to make their own interpretations and ask their questions before any dialogue fills in answers.

[Mary Dietz]

In her post, Deborah did a great job of identifying the questions. I add a few more: where are the other horsemen at the end of the scene? Why did they discard their torches when entering the frozen forest? Where is the frightened horseman riding off to? Were the horsemen looking for the people they found–why? What is the relationship?

I found the rhythm of close-ups and far shots effective for getting beyond the first impressions. The facial/body language effectively replaced dialogue by letting the viewer interpret the human responses. Hearing only the sounds of nature heightened the feeling of being vulnerable–no one was around to keep watch, aid, or even help to interpret the discoveries. The fire being hidden at first added to the suspense. The pattern of dead bodies says this was not random; what is/was the reason for the massacre and is this the end or is there more death to follow?

[Mary Dietz]

My scene is drama so the extreme is hysteria. My young character is afraid for her sister who is to marry soon. She spotted a charm laid out on the wedding dress and recognized it as the same charm responsible for her mother’s death during pregnancy.

The youngster now fantasizes about terrible consequences if her sister relies on the charm. The dialogue escalates into a loud argument at which point, the child grabs the charm, runs to the door, and throws it into the yard. She returns to her sister with a tearful show of affection and statements of how important her sister is and how much she loves her and relies on her love. Because this dialogue comes from a six-year-old it is simplistic and exaggerated.

[Mary Dietz]

The conflict definitely grows as each additional woman feels her symptoms. The extreme enters in when all need the same bathroom at the same time. The shopkeeper’s horror at the probable outcome escalates the tension. The conversation quickly switches from elegance to gross, another extreme for women dressed to accent their beauty.

The action moves the scene forward. The dialogue clarifies the viewer’s assumptions. The situation takes the women out of their default character and unmasks them. For women, unmasking is another extreme.

[Mary Dietz]

I took another look at a scene where a character flees from the protagonist. However, she returns. I strengthened her reason for returning and gave greater emphasis on how her return challenges the social status of the protagonist. The return also has implications for the husband of the protagonist, so I gave greater attention to that relationship as well. This twist does lead to a change in direction for these three characters.

[Mary Dietz]

The interview starts by seeming that the interviewer has every reason to expect Mr. Anderson to comply to help trap Morpheus. “One of your lives has a future”, “Morpheus is the most dangerous man alive”, “You want to do the right thing.” First twist: Anderson refuses. 2nd twist: His right to a phone call is thwarted by his mouth being manipulated simply by the intention of the interviewer. 3rd twist: Anderson is not beaten as it would seem he would be when the other two agents close in on him, but he is infected with a bug that appears eerily from the interviewer’s pocket case. The big twist: the audience is led to believe that the entire situation was Anderson’s bad dream. Waking and answering the phone will take the action in an entirely different direction. The questions remain. What is Anderson’s association with Morpheus? Is he dangerous? What is the future of Anderson’s hacking?

[Mary Dietz]

In the Jaws scene, the chum starts the suspense. The chief was reluctant; he’s also the one least ready to encounter the shark. His facial expression registers the danger, as do the postures and facial expressions of the other characters. The scene is stretched out by focusing on the silent responses of the players as well as their actions. The tracking of the fin is a setup to view the full 25 feet and 3 tons of the shark at the side of the boat.”Slow ahead”, “How do we handle this?”, “I’ve never steered a boat in my life,” “I’m coming around again,” and “What do we do now?” state the insecurity of the situation. “Why?” allows emphasizing the danger.

The barrel getting attached is one payoff, but when it disappears, there’s another round of suspense that is delayed as the sun sets.

In rewriting my scene I’ve increased the dialogue, including a number of questions. One of my characters is in control; the other has his life at risk but is not fully aware of that at the moment. I’m slowing the action by adding details in the environment so far as they enrich the setup. I’m also flashing to a similar situation taking place in a different venue. This is the climax scene. The payoff is that the murder is foiled.

[Mary Dietz]

• What makes this scene great?
• How these two enemies are similar and how they are different.
• What are their motivations for being in this relationship?
• Interesting action and dialogue.

This Batman scene has the Joker hitting with words and Batman hitting with fists. Both hit hard.

The Joker seems to want to save Batman some grief by telling him how to play the game: loosen up your rules. This only makes Batman more stringent and demanding. He wants information. When Joker concedes and reveals the locations, he adds that now Batman has a dilemma–he can’t save both persons because they are in two different locations. The rules won’t work. There’s a dance of subtle violence with overt violence. As the audience, I’m surprised to see the Joker giving decent advice. I’m also surprised to see Batman seemingly being brutal in his tactics when he intends to save lives.

Both characters live on the margins. Both are passionate about playing their “game.” Both put their face in the other guy’s face; though they use approach things differently, both are serious about the outcomes.

[Mary Dietz]

I had to think about which character in my script had the most to reveal. I chose a character that begins in a subordinate position but rises to challenge the protagonist. Her reveal is in her ancestry that she uses to establish what she thinks is her rightful place.

I needed to create tension that would last for the rest of the story, but it had to be based on standard values so the two “fighters” who are from different cultures would understand the impact of the reveal. Like our Spider Man example, the social status upset needed to be shown affecting both characters in the fight as well as other family members.

As the writer, I had to put myself in my characters’ shoes more for this scene than in some of the others.

[Mary Dietz]

Almost every line in this scene carries subtext. I seems that Chris will only find some kind of truth through his photos…which in this scene center on other black players.

Neighbor comments and actions hint at virility, race, servitude, and betrayal of one’s essence (Logan’s handshake, the lady’s serving alcohol. Rose’s reactions don’t need dialogue; her face says it all.

I have a scene with sexual and dominance inuendo. That will be the one I will work on. Adding more action can make it richer. I’ll check the dialogue to see how both characters can benefit from subtext, not just the one. My characters are also racially different. This is another opportunity to add more conflict with subtext.

[Mary Dietz]

Watching the Harry Meets Sally clip, I noticed that even the way the characters handled their food was unique. The dialogue was very clear about the issue: do men really understand women?

I’m working on a scene where a family is gathered to make major decisions after a death in the family. This is a perfect time for me to emphasize the hopes and fears, habits and interests of the various characters. I need to get more explicit and emphatic. I’m working with six characters in two generations and two genders.

[Mary Dietz]

I learned that I needed to reveal more of the character traits of my main character. She is a child so I added more dialogue that shows how trusting she is. Trust is a main theme for the script. This character’s trust will take some battering later.

[Mary Dietz]

The scene opens with complete chaos, which requires the viewer to invest his curiosity and look for details as clues. Because Jack is running, we see a lot of the people and the extent of the wreckage. The scene is set without dialogue and some of the details are foreshadowing action — like the fellow sucked into the engine causing the explosion.

For some reason, Jack pays attention to only two of the injured, though he sees many. He calls others into action and gives the commands. He seems to know how to medically assist. So many other characters appear dazed or traumatized; Jack seems to be fairly balanced despite his overwhelm.

We catch Jack’s name when he calls a reluctant character to assist the pregnant woman. The man wants to be sure he gets Jack’s attention when the birth becomes imminent.

The stakes are life and death; the action is fast; the dialogue is limited to what may save a life.

My opening scene involves life and death. The lead character, a child, is the only survivor as the scene ends. I need to be clear about why the violence is happening, how it relates to the child, and show her trauma — all of that through the perspective of an innocent child who does not have a background to understand the reason for the attack on her family.

Dialogue will play a major role. Foreshadowing is crucial. The child’s trauma at the opening is key to the character arc and the resolution at the end of the movie. I need to concentrate on intrigue through the details.

[Mary Dietz]

I learned that my ending still needs a lot of work. I had dialogue that didn’t move the story forward; it was merely an attempt to draw some conclusions on the characters’ thinking. I need to make it more intriguing and pertinent.

My story also has a divine component. I need more attention on the character’s depth of belief vs. doubt. The character arc is at risk.

This will take a while to rewrite. I’ll move on through the course and see if some of what I need for the end can be better foreshadowed or developed in some of the earlier scenes. I know the climax; the ending may need to be the tail end of that scene, a bit like the Seven conclusion.

Wish me luck.

[Mary Dietz]

• Even without having seen the entire movie, this was an intense scene to watch. John’s character is contrasted with Det. Will’s–one intensely restrained, the other loose and reactionary. John clarifies his motives, his actions, his capital sin, his relationship with Will in short summary: a viewer who may not have caught on earlier in the film gets a classic reveal at the end. Yet the delivery is emotional though John shows no emotion in the telling–another aspect of his character and his philosophy. Will can’t/doesn’t want to listen. It takes Freeman’s character to interpret and referee the clash; he does so professionally.

John’s death seemingly brings the violence to an end, though his dialogue says that the situation will live in the minds of others for a very long time. His death is merely a physical conclusion; Will has become the killer now.

While John’s death is a satisfying ending to the detective mystery, it is unnerving in it’s effect on those who stalked him and the consequences they will endure. The question remains: should John Doe have been shot? The viewer must decide.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Mary Dietz.

[Mary Dietz]

I had a lot to rewrite in this scene. I learned that tension must take first place. I need to play with my dialogue to add intrigue through subtext. I also need to increase the element of mystery: I’m using a montage that links two sites to one incident. I need to be clear about the intentions of both parties and the stakes of the conflict between them. I also need to be clear about the advantage that the winning character has. It’s wrapped very intensely in her character arc. I also realized that the scene can afford to be longer to accommodate all these edits.

[Mary Dietz]

This scene is a major battle for authority. The banter over rank, the belittling of Kaffee by Jessup over his never serving in the field, and the insinuation of false evidence and statements set the stage for the emotional blowouts by both characters.

Kaffee, looking for support from his team and not getting it signifies that something out of the ordinary is about to happen. Jessup sits with his credentials pinned to his jacket, but the judge and Kaffee demand the same amount of respect. Jessup’s monologue is powerful in expressing the pledge of the military to honor and protect. The moment is a replay of David and Goliath. Jessup was not forced to give his answer, but he chose to, displaying his huge responsibility and how committed he is to it. But one hidden detail uncovered by Kaffee and his team hits the vulnerable spot and slays the giant. The twist: the underdog wins and the Colonel is arrested. The giant has fallen.

[Mary Dietz]

Looking at my own turning points, I realized how “on the nose” the dialogue was. I need to add more emotion and direction toward the twist. Adding more detail should help intensify all those scenes and better show the character arc. I need to hone the twists a little more so they obviously state that there is no turning back. All three of my turning points can use some major work.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Mary Dietz.

[Mary Dietz]

I haven’t seen the entire movie, so these three scenes just feel creepy. Part of that was the slow nature of the first scene. What started so gently became traumatic at the end. I’m sure the trigger words were part of a major reveal. The action is very contained and focused. The closeup shots of body language tell the story more intensely than the dialogue. Apparently what Chis had tried to keep secret was exposed, particularly to himself. Owning the emotion plays a large part in the character arc.

The second scene seems to indicate that Chris is now entirely alone. He cannot relate to the only other man of his race. What are his chances of survival and sanity if he stands as a solitary figure in the growing community of white people?

The physical blockade of bodies is effective for the feeling of being trapped, particularly because no one is moving. Time seems to elongate in anticipation of something tragic. Chris repeating his plea for the keys shows his rising tension. The girl’s taunting is another reveal that changes the viewer’s hope for Chris. He’s screwed. We want to know whether he survives…and that moves the action forward.

[Mary Dietz]

The stakes of the challenge are life and death. I have good action: the conflict is physical. I lacked setups. I worked in more foreshadowing that will be paid off later. I have a strong character arc: an innocent child at the start and an orphan at the close. Her new identity requires a journey, and that will move the story forward because there is no going back. I tightened some of the dialogue and made it more character unique. It can still use another edit to make it “intriguing.”

[Mary Dietz]

The conflict of the jury vote is established in just a few seconds. The backstory of the kid is revealed, giving reason for the pause. The hold-out juror adds intrigue by denying the others a definitive answer. He wants an hour to talk–an indication that the rest of the movie will continue to ponder the answer to the question. There are 12 perspectives to follow and it is established in this scene that 11 of them intend to prove the lone voter wrong. The Fonda character reminds them that it’s the job of the prosecution to prove guilt. Who will speak for the defense?

The questions raised by the 11 help propel the story forward because they are not immediately answered; they set the stage for more deliberation. The challenge of the situation is that no one will be able to leave until there is consensus, and those seemingly unwilling to change their minds will prolong the process.

The arc of the scene moves from seeming certainty to uncertainty, causing the necessity of the journey to end the conflict.

[Mary Dietz]

I learned that I would do well to add dialogue to what I was thinking I could communicate mysteriously through action and mood alone. I added questions to make guide the imagination of the audience. The mystery is still there, but it is now focused. Those setups will be paid off in the next sequence of scenes.

[Mary Dietz]

The situation had dual layers: get the money and eliminate anyone else who might get a share. For that, the action was non-stop. Setups were paid off almost immediately. The questions in the dialogue were answered and all set the tone and introduction to the main character. The only slow moment was at the end when we were left to anticipation of the explosive in the banker’s mouth.

We don’t know the identity of any of the robbers other than the Joker. The masks hold that mystery for the entire scene. The bank manager’s assessment that thieves have less character than previously foreshadows more chaos. Joker’s reply about becoming stranger is a setup for the rest of the film.

The twist at the end happens with a single action of removing the mask and revealing Joker’s character in a single sentence which holds the viewer’s attention to want to know the full impact of “strein jerr.”

The cast of characters were eliminated one by one until only the Joker remained–so different from most films that start with a small cast and we watch it grow. Each character being eliminated moved the story forward to show the savvy of the Joker who is the last man standing.

The character arc moves from the mystery behind the reputation of the Joker to the close-up at the end of the scene when he states that “strange” is a strength.

[Mary Dietz]

My name is Mary Dietz. I have the first draft of a script which I have set aside while I worked on a novel that wouldn’t let my mind focus until I finished it.

I find I do well setting up characters, dialogue, and plot. I’m weak in getting the emotion on the page. I’m hoping this class will help me in that capacity…both for screenwriting and works of prose.

I’m a religious sister in the male-dominated Catholic Church. I hope to write some of the best stories of our faith from the women’s point of view.

[Mary Dietz]

Mary Dietz

I agree to the terms of this release form.

As a member of this group, I, Isti Madarasz, agree to the following terms of this release form:

1. That I will keep the processes, strategies, teleconferences, communications, lessons, and models of the class confidential, and that I will NOT share any of this program either privately, with a group, posting online, writing articles, through video or computer programming, or in any other way that would make those processes, teleconferences, communications, lessons, and models of the class available to anyone who is not a member of this class.

2. That each writer’s work here is copyrighted and that writer is the sole owner of that work. That includes this program which is copyrighted by Hal Croasmun. I acknowledge that submission of an idea to this group constitutes a claim of and the recognition of ownership of that idea.

I will keep the other writer’s ideas and writing confidential and will not share this information with anyone without the express written permission of the writer/owner. I will not market or even discuss this information with anyone outside this group.

3. I also understand that many stories and ideas are similar and/or have common themes and from time to time, two or more people can independently and simultaneously generate the same concept or movie idea.

4. If I have an idea that is the same as or very similar to another group member’s idea, I’ll immediately contact Hal and present proof that I had this idea prior to the beginning of the class. If Hal deems them to be the same idea or close enough to cause harm to either party, he’ll request both parties to present another concept for the class.

5. If you don’t present proof to Hal that you have the same idea as another person, you agree that all ideas presented to this group are the sole ownership of the person who presented them and you will not write or market another group member’s ideas.

6. Finally, I agree not to bring suit against anyone in this group for any reason, unless they use a substantial portion of my copyrighted work in a manner that is public and/or that prevents me from marketing my script by shopping it to production companies, agents, managers, actors, networks, studios or any other entertainment industry organizations or people.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Mary Dietz.

[Mary Dietz]

To begin, the action is in Sally’s court. She initiates the discussion. From the way she is stacking her sandwich without even looking at it, it’s obvious that she has an agenda other than eating. Harry sticks with his sandwich, almost like a shield to protect his masculinity; if he keeps eating, he won’t let the conversation bother him. His replies are short, confident, and fairly dismissive. He weakens at one point when he asks if Sally is alright; then his embarrassment seeps in.

Sally’s display to make her point is lavish, prolonged, and separate from the food, which she returns to when she finishes her attempt at proof.

This is basically a fight scene, in a public place, with witnesses. The older woman’s comment at the end proclaims the winner.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Mary Dietz.