[Sandeep Gupta]

This is the only scene and lesson I will remember from the whole set for these 39 seconds taking me more than 39, if not a whole 48 hours to grasp as much as my answer reflects.

One reason is I grew up on the other side of the planet and by the time I could read and where I could read, the circumstances around this scene were politely hidden history. If that was not enough, there is no way to decipher on the dramatic foundation from the scene per se. Especially as many competing narratives about ALI must have reached and lost on me over the years. Helped to listen to the screenplay for clues.

Presuming for the rest of this write up the screenplay version available is at least emotionally factual. Regardless, a ton of the dramatic foundation for the scene for people in the US, especially for those mature enough in or about the history of late 1960s, would come from the apperception mass from the defining and polarizing moment of the scandal, outrage, as well as legend and admiration from seeing it in newsprint, and TV.

The other thing I noticed, given Will can portray a wider range of emotions, Ali, although very emotional and remarkably coherent for such a upsetting and stirring moment, was a little contained. If I am reading this right and not a consequence of a phone screen. His sentiments may seem common-sense to recognize today, his truth was likely a bold insight for its time and an example that the First Amendment is our friend.

And arguably it was a fairly calculated play on his part that could only have helped integration — remarkable as there is no way Ali and Will were not aware of the moment and the other consequences possible in the gambit.

In the screenplay it gets obvious he is as consistent as he declared, he is brave enough and fearless to define it. And “once his mind is made up” he speaks it unambiguously and never wavers. All that is fairly apparent in the monologue, as is (a) his eloquent exposition of the wound, and (b) the possibilities of what he will be living into the future.

Given how polarizing this event was (internet and AI tell me so, that it was) the consequences would have delighted both sides, although his supporters got a fair amount of delay in the gratification. I wish these times were not so politically correct and afraid we will never know how that generation saw this movie today.

Anyone else making acquaintance with this event for the first time? I would love to hear what you have to say, as well as those who “knew.”

Last, but not the least, the insight came from noticing this scene is ten pages before the movie’s midpoint when all begins to fall apart. Clearly the placement of the character’s truth at or around structural points is a tool with many possibilities.

[Sandeep Gupta]

This movie could be called “Uncomfortable Moments,” and also live up to its title and initials.

I couldn’t locate exactly where in the movie¹ this scene was placed, so I will use everything I can put together to answer this one.

¹Where is the screenplay for this one y’all!? We need to see what it takes to onboard De Niro and Danner.

The discomfort machine starts pretty quickly. GREG is arriving at the residence of a former (is there such a thing?) CIA field officer, so of course his luggage wouldn’t make it there until he has been cleared by JACK. And Greg doesn’t know jack.

He has to win Jack’s approval, miscalculates his prep, arrives not knowing how to say grace in a Christian household, makes an inappropriate comment about the vase and then points the champaign cork in that direction, in order to get out of the awkward moment. Jack’s a good guy or Greg would have been shot by now. However genuine PAM finds him, he starts a tale of milking a cat which everyone with common sense or one who even ever watched a cat feed, sees through. There is a pot pipe in one of the wedding jackets, the almost perfect (even if a bit of a fanatic) KEVIN, Pam’s former boyfriend is in the picture. Greg smashes DEBBIE’s nose in the pool polo, and not entirely on purpose but carelessly sets up a gutter fire trying to be accountable for the cat and ends up burning big chunk of the home, clogs the sceptic tank, ruining the wedding whose alter he has already burnt! Of course, he then gets detained until Jack shows up. Few scenes after reliving the childhood and lifelong trauma of being named what his parents named him.

I have to say my ( : review : ) from decades ago stands. It would have been a more wonderful a movie without hurting Debbie and sceptic spill.

GREG arrives in a weak position. Dramatic conflict starts as he wants, perhaps presumes the family’s approval and he almost perfectly loves PAM, although I have to say she loves him way more than he does by how much he seemed to have cared about preparing for visiting her family. Without her commitment we wouldn’t have this movie. Either way, to top it all he is deeply suspicious of the CIA, jumped to wrong conclusions, snuck into the wrong room as if being a klutz wasn’t enough and then Jack chooses to question on drug use and DINA’s pot roast while he is wired to the Marston machine, just to bust his chops.

My traits-labeling game is generally weak, I seem to get the sense of characters otherwise. But in this one, the contrast between Greg-Jack drives the drama — klutz-savvy, controlled-clueless, suspicious-“suspicious but willing to look deeper,” and “fish out of water” to “powerfully resourceful.” And I am just guessing, I feel without Dina’s completely different in a better way personality to Jack’s top of the chain alpha traits, this ensemble would have been too chaotic a drama to be palatable.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: dropped the html tags that came to visit this somehow

[Sandeep Gupta]

Still not rewriting unfortunately, but the one insight looking at this scene is people are not necessarily going to see the same scene if there are anchors they can hook more easily.

[Sandeep Gupta]

While I worked on the principle of this assignment, I am afraid, that bona fide I have a completely different take and I mean no disregard to class. I am also a little troubled by the assumptions I made when I watched the movie the first time. Not out of guilt albeit that our job is harder.

When I saw the movie, it was quite simple. SEAN got provoked. But when I saw it for this exercise, I see no sign of provocation on him.

Even if in the movie Sean hands WILL a victory, telling him soon after that he tore up his life.

The shot is owned by Will, just because he doesn’t look beaten, I presumed he was winning. In reality he lost four duels with Sean in this clip we saw, and one or two just before the clip. Sean doesn’t lose his cool even for a second in that entire scene, even while and after handling Will. He is calm, collected, and keeps his back towards Will leaving, probably to see if he will do anything once his back is turned.

In good faith, as I see it’s Sean who got to Will in the end. The duels¹ Will lost to Seans’s repartee-touchés, he just ignores the loss and hits the next one. Will has a problem with authority because of his past, and he has demonstrated a lucky streak attacking and avoiding being “owned” by the shrinks — as he perceives it. Here, Sean found a way to get him to listen.

¹ Sean has a sharp and skilled-calm riposte to every insult or challenge Will throws at him. His unchallenging demeanor is deceptive, but he has won every attack.

With books for a start — Zinn is an anarchist historian, and he has written simplified and accessible texts. Chomsky is a harder read, even for those who claim to have to read him. Sean answers he benches 285, Will clearly isn’t close, avoids answering. Sean is indulging him in his critique of the painting, but the moment Will actually starts to cross roles, bingo! Sean starts to reclaim the session.

Will is still marching onto Waterloo and desperate, attacks his significant relationship. Sean takes that as an opportunity to reclaim the role, in the form of a stern warning.

Now Will’s got a reaction. He takes that as a win and strikes harder. Sean, calmly takes off his glasses, makes a very measured move and deftly pins him with his 285 grip.

Will has lost, met more than his match. He deflects again as “time’s up.”

Albeit Sean got to him, and this shrink, would be his psychologist, not victim. That’s the consequence.

I had presumed Sean probably had Vietnam trauma and unprocessed grief regarding the painful loss of his wife. But I looked up enough today about conflict, rivalry, PTSD, and behavior of lashing out, to be pop psych certain Sean exhibited absolutely no symptoms of any of them. Will does get to him by the end of the movie though, and Sean channels that constructively, putting cards back on the table.

The dramatic foundations of this scene are unbelievably sound, and that’s when frankly on Sean’s side (if I remember correctly) it’s just Robin’s acting, presence and the two dudes writing it for us on the fly as we watch.

One coincidence helping is both are Southies, other than that we are just hurriedly connecting the dots on Sean at this point.

If I remember correctly, we are discovering, and a little incorrectly perhaps that Sean has unprocessed grief and got triggered — at least that’s the first conclusion I safely jumped towards. We already want Will to come through it, so we want this to go well. That Robin Williams is here, raises our hopes but doesn’t convince us, until Sean does.

I may have contradicted the subtext of the question, but honestly this is what I saw.

[Sandeep Gupta]

The less I think about this scene this late in the day, the happier I will be. At the same time, the power of the value contrast he has to execute, will haunt Rick and will haunt me too, I think.

[Sandeep Gupta]

As described in the setup to the scene, RICK has lost his son, and his primed dad instinct is on high alert. Our hopes are up because the child picks up a cuddly toy, she has to be sensitive right? Then she turns. We notice him hesitating to pull the gun, and worry for his safety. The twist is not easy. We experience relief only for a second, courtesy of the brilliant editing that shows the child as a child that she is. At her most vulnerable, following a brutal end, totally milked by the director and editor based on the writing of the threat, as a child. A girl child. Mercy.

I don’t think I want to think too much about this scene, pure luck the lesson explains this scene is early in the plot, so I am happily not feeling guilty about studying the antecedents.

[Sandeep Gupta]

just realized this little scene delivers all six elements on this week’s syllabus. truth of Rick’s dad instinct, shows his protective trait, uncomfortable moment, value clash, test, [and likely a breakdown after the scene? — he is a grieving dad afterall.] goodness i need to write a week4 scene so this one doesn’t live rent free top floor en mi cabeza.

[Sandeep Gupta]

I am still not rewriting; however, the subtlety and patient wait to pay off setup beats, each of which stands on its own seems abundantly clear.

[Sandeep Gupta]

This scene has effortlessly lived super-fondly in my head for nearly three decades. A source of insight for me is realizing I believed LISA in this scene the first time I saw this movie back then. Marisa was not known to me before this movie, so I couldn’t be biased.

Watching this scene in isolation today, I couldn’t recall any scene in this movie where she had demonstrated automotive skills before this rabbit.

So I set about to figure out why the first time I didn’t find her sudden expertise unbelievable. I feel that letting us in earlier on her talent would have made the character weak by being too convenient and feel lazy composition in spite her genius acting.

Like the contrary secrets and reveals for Kate (in Lost,) I think in this reveal-set our trust happened in three stages. First one subtly hints by Lisa recognizing something’s up with the car after they hit mud. Even as VINNY claims she knows everything, and we are thrown off by her “not knowing” an “obvious” concept what the passerby explains. Second relevant beat is her familiarity with mechanical engineering skills (via confident ad lib re “Torqueation” on the Motel faucet) which are a garage away from a car, ensure the scene in study, however big, is not a predictable surprise.

A full etiology of the success of this scene would make this make a term paper size answer repeating everything everyone has already seen. I dutifully checked each lesson, and it checks out exceptionally well. On. Each. Darn. Lesson. For a moment I thought the lesson on character ending doesn’t apply to this one until I remembered how she destroys the expert witness WILBUR’s cred, Prosecutor TROTTER’s crusade and newfound pomposity.

In addition, the dramatic foundation of this chapter is not just tapped out in their patio argument, but considering what they pulled off — I can’t recall a people and relationship movie with stakes so big that everything, the relationship, career, life, and lives would be destroyed forever if this scene didn’t turn.

[Sandeep Gupta]

i still have the same story, not rewriting. maybe by next week i will knock some sense into my head.

anyone willing to share scenes after we are done with the lessons? presuming this forum will be available to CM6.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Arguably this is the simplest of the scenes we studied so far, and yet one of the most emotional ones. Most of the beats leading up to it are purely sequential, and yet somehow very moving already. Then this specific scene is woven with like five story climaxes.

The willingness of his teammates to sacrifice their spot and RUDY’s perseverance finally being requited both contribute to his arrival at the scene. The scene though, is heated on several ambers. (Five by my quick count.)

We’ve learnt FORTUNE, a man pivotal in Rudy’s journey enters the stands to see him, feeling somewhat absolved of the burden he carried for he himself having quit at the bench. The fans have heard his story in the campus newspaper, so the whole town is at the stadium rooting for him, and his own family is here. And to make the suspense stronger, he is sitting on the bench. Because, as told, the coach wouldn’t play him.

The next emotional tug is teammates can’t take him sitting on the bench, and the QB defies the coach and takes a career risk instead of settling for a conservative play to run the clock out, culminating his sacrifice, climaxing in his success as well as getting Rudy into the game. Finally, Rudy quickly makes the critical and decisive tackle to win the game. ¹

¹ I don’t understand Football. I had to go to Wikipedia to figure out this is what happened in the last minute.

Another writing lesson seems the real story behind this story. Coach DEVINE, according to IMDB actually insisted Rudy play in the final game. The truth would have almost killed the climax. Funny.

The win is uniquely his because the boy who could not get even one vote of confidence, including his own, finally rides an exhilarating landslide. He served this school, worked from the floor up, and in spite thinnest odds, he actually succeeds and gets his day like the superstar his efforts earned him. Every auxiliary climax I mentioned above contributes to it by making each one a winner. I’d venture the scene is engaging because of the stakes, that each of these five stories, in spite only one turning in a surprising way last minute, are each — all actually — just as likely to come untied.

My other take, ² and I hope someone brings in a deeper perspective than mine, the depth of this scene is the breadth (#) of climaxes made especially poignant by a peer’s (the QB’s) risky play and success. Overall, there is not one moving part we identify with by that scene that is not a winner.

² With my ignorance of football.

That’s what I think.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Presuming this one like all Week 3 classes will get Week 3 titles…

As I may have hinted earlier, I remember very little of this movie, and I had to google more minutes and a commentary to understand where the depth of this character was coming from. Apparently there is a legion of Cypherites on the internet who believe he is correct. Yikes. The whole movie is a dystopian fantasy in the first place, but two wrongs def dun’t make no wright.

For this assignment I will limit it to what I understood from just this scene which also connects to my recall — CYPHER did look envious of NEO when TRINITY brought him in. And neither from this scene nor from recall of the movie do I think Cypher’s disillusionment was ideological. It’s more that of low self-esteem and a repressed, unrequited longing for Trinity. That’s the evidence I see in the penultimate and ultimate expression of this journey finally ticketed by TANK. Penultimate being his taking liberty on Trinity. That rhymes with his earlier character. One that neither knew love, nor touch. This is not a forlorn lover. His repressed fantasy has come apart, and now he is neither the sole alpha nor very flattered that his ego has been battered by a timid college-boy. And so he destroys the world. Gives up MORPHEUS and destroys colleagues.

I am not sure this qualifies for his test. His journey does end with a thumped no.

I am also unable to see any depth in this character. He never showed any merit in the movie to all that he just declared he deserved. He only expresses his shallowness, his cluelessness, and that he never was one, leave aside being the one. The only thing that makes him engaging, one spectacle is king in this movie, two, all the characters we cared about are in jeopardy, three, we are desperately waiting for someone to somehow hit reset on the tension.

The movie and the scene are a little lost on me. It’s not quite Orwell, whose tales were a hypothetical, consistent premise, which we could relate to as a What-If. This is a worse than dystopian fantasy, one of What-Is — and what is by them, is all bad and bad. If one presumes this as a metaphor for the role-playing do-gooders who live in hardship and sometimes squalor to keep civilization, ones who are often hanging by a thread that can be disconnected by a dirty hand inside, it fails. Because there is no pristine civilization to be saved except this “liberated” sceptic-tank. And if Trinity is a trained one, and on top of that a woman, why is she dismissive of the threat Cypher poses and not try to de-escalate a situation jeopardizing three of her vulnerable colleagues? For that matter, how does a petty envious psyche of Cypher get through this program? So then it’s just a shootout between good-rogues and rogue-goodmen? $157.29 million says there’s more. I wish I knew, but at the moment, as far as I see so far, the only depth in this scene is spectacle, by 1999 standards. Help!

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: removed the lesson inaccessible line

[Sandeep Gupta]

(not there yet, the concept I labeled “negative red herring” is absolutely next level subterfuge i never thought of and i hope i can weave it in now…)

[Sandeep Gupta]

I am presuming once again the headline for this thread will be corrected to The Matrix.

My first take was that the superhigh-density metaphoric content of this scene likely compensates for directly checking all the boxes for a turning point. I guessed the audience is still rooting for NEO, after all he is Keanu.

Knowing full well they have more expertise in their pinkie compared to me, I had to pore over the scene wondering what it is the Wachowskis knew about the audience this for TP1 that I don’t see. I was about to settle for the above paragraph when I realized a lot of the work for this scene is done in the scene immediately before.

So the audience doesn’t penalize the scene’s rhinoplasty, and we are all in for the ride into the unknown, expecting the revelation of the Matrix that seems to be the racket behind everything going on. That’s brilliant, isn’t it? Did C&H choose last two scenes together on purpose? I have a take. First back to the assignment.

We already know Neo is defiant and brave, he has hesitantly met with his “mentor” and crossed the “first threshold” by not settling to return untouched to the “ordinary world,” and is committed to the “journey” into the unknown. But he is not yet known for his fortitude, just for being a brilliant hacker with a penchant for trouble.

So the Campbellian stage tricking us into watching him up his “game” and go from avoidant to committed, turning tenaciously confident / resolved. I think we are tricked¹ because we were waiting to see the matrix revealed — another example of what I named “negative red herring” a few hours ago. Instead of showing us the matrix right then via Neo, they deliver six million referential metaphors of (re)birth complete with…, immersion, baptism, overcoming fear, this Campbellian “belly of the whale” (separation from the past,) and his newfound fortitude. Finally at utter exhaustion he is pulled towards the light, a dorky skylight, oddly passively. Maybe it is to signal to the audience in a second that he is in the hands of safe albeit tough-love Allies?

¹ Funny, not on the nose by being on the nose. And funny a scene I entirely tuned out of when I very reluctantly saw the movie IRL, could teach so much today.

[Sandeep Gupta]

oh boy, thanks, i missed that! yes, i think so too, that’s yet another key. the first time we see his face we are seeing him reject a “disproportionate response.” duh, this writer is of course brilliant. i just wondered why he didn’t intercut footage of the girl in the hospital during Bonasera’s monologue, to intensify the moment, and realized it’s probably a “negative” red herring. we want to know more about the girl’s situation, and pinned to the chair to know more and he takes us into the story about something else …

also, thanks for reading my attempt Deb.

[Sandeep Gupta]

I am still not rewriting, although this one gives me one clue into the one scene I fixated on in my screenplay as being “dull” when I expected it to be intense. So far, I was thinking of rethinking the situation, and one more note I shared that I can’t recall at the moment. This one has two more clues. One, relying on the actors to pick up on nuances. And the other, that the camera, lighting and scene composition, per shot and sequencing it is as effective as dialog. Writing those too specifically however would annoy a director, although it couldn’t hurt leaving clues, especially if they are metaphoric, and meaningful as was this scene in Francis’ head while he wrote the long monologues.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Once again presuming this thread is going to be renamed Godfather…. Ah Well.

I often nod yes to, “if someone takes six hundred lines to explain something, they probably do not know what they are talking about.”

Here, therefore, a share of something I haven’t a clue about. My explanation has too many lines. There has to be a simpler way to explain this magic.

I doubt this opening would convince anyone today to read the whole screenplay if it wasn’t a co-author director, maybe named Francis seeing the movie in his head. Most of the scintillating darkness of this scene is not written in at all and it is integral to scene and the answers for this assignment.

As I see it at the moment, for me to make an opening work with two 90+ second monologues I will have to write-in those nuances, so in this answer I will consider all that as part of the writing. That’s not even counting the acting. I think we need to do this exercise for DON VITO as well as for BONASERA. Both have visible and mysterious layers enticing us into the scene, both put each other into an uncomfortable situation. So first, looking at these layers as a background for the scene’s depth.

Bonasera telegraphed something we have seen as hidden and suspected in his stiffness. We see that layer manifest, when he is called for Sunny’s service. Something we suspected less than nebulously that he was only acquiescing out of his need for revenge and not offering a relationship of trust.

Even if it pays off much later in the movie, that is not only written in, but at that later moment also, cashed in for showing Don’s character at that heartbreaking moment.

Don is helping him at the moment, one for the sake of honoring an Italian father-of-the-bride tradition, then for gaining influence as well, for bringing him into the fold, for banking a favor, and all that not for someone with whom he has any deeper connection than “this undertaker.”

In my take, everything is built over that relationship in which he gets his way from the scene.

One amazing thing is the choice of Bonasera to open the scene. For most of us, the opening is mediated by us knowing this is a movie about a powerful don played by Marlon.

Bonasera is unknown to us, we are wondering who he is, and what jeopardy is he in to speak that way. The dark background gives us zero information, so we are literally forced to interpret every nuance in his voice. Is he a patriot trapped by the mob? Is he Eliott Ness? He is clearly not a powerful man at ease.

Only when we are settled in wanting to comfort him, we realize someone else is patiently listening to him, like us. Perhaps that helps us identify with Don? But clearly now something is going to happen to help Bonasera. And something touching does close to the end.

Although meanwhile Don, a mob titan, finds murder unacceptable instantly, naturally, pointedly giving the justification for his choice without missing a beat. Boy. Why don’t we make criminals this decent again, before we let them run….

The Don is almost pained by the offer of money from “this undertaker,” whom he — until after Bonasera’s departure, in his last word to TOM HAGEN — treats with as much reverence as for the priest of a small parish or a lost brother-in-law.

In spite how little he thinks of him. All in the writing.

In his “I understand” (and Marlon’s deeply empathetic delivery) we realize the Don is neither a sociopath nor does he resent law abiding citizens wanting to stay aloof of this type. We are already on this guy’s side comparing him to the irrational, “law-abiding-until-it-hurt-his-toe” everyman Bonasera. Frankly at this point in the movie I’d trade half my own overtly law-abiding acquaintances to be nice to this guy’s moral code. From those six minutes alone, not … on the other hand I don’t think I ever disliked him. I have to watch this movie again.

There is a lot more introducing/expressing Don’s profile. In his patient silence and command of the room, we see him listening, and can only presume listening with empathy as he asks Sunny to help. People in the room are revealed slowly, and only when Bonasera offers him money, we are hurriedly introduced to the quorum of respectfully silent but imposing gentlemen each with presence, elevating the Don’s presence as the chief. None of this, or his silences when he figures out how to explain it to this “prodigal petty man” is written in the script. But 100% germane to “writing” the story today, unless the writer is an auteur. Is there a single moment when he takes any action or refrains from moving a finger, that doesn’t present this man to us? Them big shoes, methinks.

Finally, briefly what I referred to above, they both put each other in a challenging situation. Don is “required” by traditional norms to help anyone on his daughter’s wedding day but this man is an : ) apostate. Bonasera is challenged to accept a relationship he has despised for decades.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Sandeep Gupta.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Presuming both W3D1 answers go in here, and the title of this one will be changed to The Proposal and Silence. Also, this clip is really not that complete, right? But knowing this course what are C&H trying pointing us towards?

The Silence of the Lambs characters CLARICE and DOCTOR don’t have parallel or contrapuntal arcs like I abstracted in the assignment for The Proposal. I had to read the script for this movie in a previous class as I didn’t have the stomach to watch it. If Hal put it here, there probably is something to find. So frankly, this late in the evening I am trying to play hooky for this assignment, and not returning to the script to study the co-location. If one of you convince me with your insights, I might consider daring the movie on one otherwise wasted afternoon.

Regardless the contrast between The Proposal and The Silence of the Lambs is quite instructive. Clarice goes from timid but determined rookie to wannabe-proven, to been there done that pro. Doctor L doesn’t arc at all, ¹ (more next ¶) the only thing that arcs is his warmth, or lack thereof in the beginning, to the guy who relents some insights to her by the end. Even then whoever he is, he is still an ice-in-his-veins-sociopath, one who isn’t really warming up to Clarice. As is clear from the movie (script!) he is somehow working the situation so he can figure his own escape beyond what he is asking.

Inasmuch as gradually she becomes useful to him, he correspondingly warms up to the conversation. Although there is a puzzling fact. In an odd way, he was protective of her way early if he really punished the inmate for throwing some goop at Clarice. The only way I could stomach the entire plot was to imagine he was maybe working undercover to destroy the corrupt in that system. ¹Even with that thought he doesn’t arc, if he cares he stays constant like an ominous Locrian bass, as he moves forward to his next “assignment.” Clarice plays her melody against that, even in the instant when she exposes a traumatic memory, she is steeling into the self-image that she wants to earn or confirm. By the end, she succeeds.

Darn. I hope my curiosity doesn’t lead me to watch this nightmare.

For those who are reading this late or make the mistake of watching the trailer late at night, there is a Cine Fix – IGN Movies and TV Trailer Mix that reimagines the movie as a Romantic Comedy. Might let you sleep easier, if you are rattled. So watch that and call me in the morning.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Even if I was among the better students of the class and diligently writing out the scenes yet, I doubt I can do this one in one day. I mean I can write more than a scene in one day, and possibly think of character arcs as mise en scène in the same way, although the co-location or not and contrapuntal arrangement of the structural points is not something I will understand or rethink in one hour or a day.

Funny, look at me talk. I have a Ph.D. in procrastination, but seriously aching to get it taken back though.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Actually, Hal has analyzed this movie in great detail in some earlier (FCF?) lectures. So instead of reproducing what would arguably be derived insights without the movie, I am going to try and use this trailer as a complete movie. Also, a lesson is hiding here. I noticed like the Lost assignment (hopefully not lost on us,) the trailer left me wanting more. And I *know* the story!

For this I will presume just these facts I “know” from the full story without having seen the movie. MARGARET has not had a real family and has a crisis of conscience appropriately in the A3. ANDREW — i know this guy — actually tolerated her, in spite he is strong and secure. Nothing else causes his compliance except that he adores her and maybe just more Canadian than she is : )

By the trailer alone, other than the contrasting intros, the turning points for both coincide. A1 turns by placing the distressed lead in a more distress, A2 turns bringing them closer and acknowledging their feelings. In this interpretation the mid-points for both are not simultaneous. At his mid-point Andrew begins to take control of the situation, probably culminating in tossing her into the Bering–Chuckchi. For Margaret possibly it is when she realizes she has real feelings for him.

Ending of course is their happily ever after? We know it from the poster even if she has him by his tether.

Climax is tricky. For Margaret, it is likely the crisis of conscience and breakdown upon an overwhelming longing for that full family dynamic she had never experienced. For Andrew, from the trailer it is not clear. I am sure he got there other than marrying the girl he adored, and as a peer that he is actually.

For one, I had never considered planning characters with the counterpoint and co-location or not, at these major points. Can’t unsee it now, and it seems too big an opportunity to leave to chance. So much meaning can be embedded in it.

In terms of the scenes of Lost we watched W1D4, it’s like we were shown S1, S2, and bam, for S3 — which we figured and ached to see — we had to come to theatres. I don’t know if it is primal, but I still want to know “for sure” how he actually agreed, how they got there. And I am not even one for gossip even from my close friends. Looking forward to more articulated insights on the trailer and how this was achieved, if y’all please.

Also — gratefully acknowledging Larry’s note I saw in forwarded emails to me today. Due to that note, I felt less apologetic writing this one.

[Sandeep Gupta]

In the screenplays on top of my mind the relationships that I have understood are psychologically very symmetric, the conflict comes from maturity of both, and other circumstantial limitations. Given that I’ve seen five contrasts in two consequent lessons, I am wondering if what I have is enough to host as much drama a script needs. Part of the problem may be I have not counted or planned these. That’s what I have. So far.

[Sandeep Gupta]

This is one scene for which I think questions cannot be answered true to film without help of pages leading to it, so my scene-purist friend if you are reading this, please bear with me. Let me explain.

From the scene itself it seems ALLY is smitten by JACK at the onset, and he is somewhat indifferent until (quickly when) she knocks out a few lines improvising her accurate read of Jack at the opening of the song. That didn’t agree with what I had read about the story, so I went to the script. QED.

Jack is at least impressed by her from the instant he recognizes her talent singing Piaf 10–15 pages before this scene. If he is not attracted by her manner in the green room, I’d say it would be a rather odd and insensitive sense of prerogative. Instead let’s presume his best intentions and say he is attracted by her talent and effortless rapport with an unusual bunch, and bowled over by the time she reads him out in the parking lot like a large-print aria.

Ally seems to go from minus 10 to a plus 100 on him by the time Jack has told her the story of his birth and upbringing. Her initial reaction was common-sense-caution, makes him wait, doesn’t fan-girl on him, but softens by the time he has put cold compress on her hand and has completely abandoned caution, a moment before she croons “I am falling.”

From the previous pages, Jack is in serious need of someone acknowledging his miserable baggage, and arguably this is the first time he shares this wound with anyone. Given he was raised by a near-peer, he may also have a need to “save” someone he can take under his wing and balance the “subjugation.” This actually may also be the “secret” we didn’t know yet. That kid who was raised by his brother and still resents him at some level, will quickly be competing with Ally’s success although he is doing all to cause it at the moment.

For Ally, she recognizes her own talent and resents the unfair or even cruel rejection on her looks. That is a major wound for a young girl, and Jack bandages it a bit by the time they are out of the Cop bar. From the looks of it, he also heals it some by his appreciation of her talent — he is from the very industry that inflicted that wound on her. From the way she prizes her friends that accept her, that’s *her* void she is trying to fill.

Both have telegraphed a future. She is ambitious, he is going to give her a helping hand, but this headstrong hothead may eventually have enough of the needy and insecure boy. That may be obvious and contribute further to the drama as does the contrast in their traits — hothead ingenue vs. calm experience, career at lower rungs, vs. top rung, young vs. old, psychological soothers being relationships vs. alcohol, and being alone vs. among friends, e.g. Funny, I had not consciously registered these five contrasts until I started writing them. Sort of re-emphasizes the discovery in the previous lesson.

Regardless, top talent of both, nurturing nature (even if his is not beneath jealousy) and hopes pegged on each other’s implicit promise will bring them together until, offering all the above to play out in conflicts, ergo drama. It is not unlikely we also feel a little suspense — whether he is going to adopt, befriend, or date her till the end of the scene. But that may just be me being dense. : D

[Sandeep Gupta]

still in rethink mode. i do have a triangle in one of the screenplays but it is more complicated than one that is up front for all three to see. the idea i mentioned in the last paragraph for Day 4 though, kind of extends the triangle to be a substructure configurable into nearly every dramatic scene.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Interesting how much happens en-scene without taking into account the first half of the movie mise-en-scene. Especially the triangle.

TESS clearly still has very strong emotions for DANNY. She is badly hurt by something he did, she acts to spite him in spite that the relationship is clearly not dead for her. Neither of them know it though. For her it’s just shoved beneath the carpet of an exigent reality. Unlike for Danny, who is aware the relationship is likely lost and to be re-won.

He is still deeply connected to her or at least deeply covetous, and “operates” pretending the relationship is not dead.

Danny seems to really know something about Terry — which wouldn’t be hard. Terry is naturally suspicious of him, them being in that world and as well as now that he learned Danny is Tess’s former husband.

Tess and TERRY seem to have more of a functional relationship, nowhere more evident than in the silent seconds before Danny arrives. Even if Tess may have resigned to one of convenience, I don’t trust Terry though. In a way the writer set us up to want to rescue her?

Still, this is clearly Danny’s scene to drive, and that’s something given that Tess is Julia and Ted Griffin may have a D.Litt. in repartee. Almost all of the observations above, especially between Tess and Danny are pretty much in the dialog.

With all the above to understand the interest techniques, this is what I see so far. While we root for our obvious favorites, ownership of the turf seem to highly favor the other, the scene’s antagonist. What further draws interest is Danny confidently telegraphing the future with both.

He approaches Tess first in an as a matter-of-fact nonchalant manner, and then respectfully altruistic — I believe him that he will respect her choice of not choosing him, albeit for someone better.

In Terry’s case Danny indicates with simple and light confidence — giving *us* the glee that the “all-knowing” alpha-Terry offers Tess by declaring his dominance to Danny. Although it seems unfair to rely only on the scene but for the sake of that challenge, at this point Danny may even be a good guy good guy, who only lied about being a thief. And maybe he really isn’t. Amal thinks so.

Arguably, there are two triangles in this scene, one with Tess, and the other with Casino’s assets. Which is kinda very interesting, because in a way then every scene with a want-object is a triangle scene. That opens up possibilities for us to seed (write) contrasting attitudes towards it.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Well, still rethinking, and this time rethunk the rethink from yesterday — as this scene illustrates bestowing characters with highly contrasted traits isn’t essential when they might be similar in traits and have a different (notion of right wrong) agenda. Instead, one character can dominate the other by escalating beats, punchline and topper to create high drama. This might make more sense organically in the second scene I mentioned in my answer yesterday.

[Sandeep Gupta]

The power-struggle in this movie is founded in history told at a time when segregation taken for granted that far was giving way for an annuit cœptis redecreed after a war fought by peoples together.

Coach HERMAN BOONE is not a consensus leader riding a wave into his role. He is an appointed instrument of this change. Adding this drama, the boys from Hammond carry in their need to dominate and hold on to time by continuing to call shots. However, GERRY BERTIER, their leader also has a need to be able to play on the team.

Herman has control over it and hits him thrice. First by reducing his demand to a joke, then threatening his spot on the team, and finally reducing him to accepting his “autocracy.” Interestingly, their profiles, in spite opposing agendas aren’t as contrasted as for characters in the previous lessons and the point is made by Herman’s thrice-hammered dominance. Right?

Both parties also have a perceived wound, so both are standing up for their “people” who they want to see treated differently than — this right or wrong, “injustice perceived by them.” The future has been telegraphed in the boys’ overt acquiescence and admitting the possibility they’ve lost that. Just as well right then, were we to borrow from the rest of the movie, clearly there is a layer being hatched at that very point. Audiences that they are playing to, do play a role here. Herman gets a jump responding publicly and forcing a larger and open audience in contrast to a nearly clandestine opinion on behalf of a smaller audience just delivered to him.

Question — is there a secret playing a role here that I am not catching on to?

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Deb.

[Sandeep Gupta]

I have only rethunk two scenes, but it is a hunk of a rethunk. I do have two scenes in mind, in which I have F2Fs between opponents and allies respectively. By nature of their roles there are a few dimensions of difference between the opponents, and barely two in the allies scene. And definitely not five, and definitely not that stark. Thing is, the fact that I could write out five dimensions I would have sworn I didn’t notice, is rattling. But I was glued to the tiny screen, no denying it’s power — means the audience may register all this at some level. Task is clear. I have to fictionalize attributes into these characters to make them story worthy. My problem is I don’t feel confident I can do that one chisel at a time. This is major re-sculpting. How do you all pull it off one at a time?

[Sandeep Gupta]

Actually, these characters are not mismatched at all. Both are accomplished virtuosos, on top of their games. One in music and the other of brawn. Connoisseur smooth aesthetes — one in arts one in blue collar survival and pride. Both immensely proud men, likely independent and both ambitious to stay on top of their world. Carnegie Hall, or bouncing and hot dogs. Both are sensitive and loyal to the essence of family. Both think certain work is beneath them.

Haha, all they have to do now is to cross that five-dimensional chasm of erudition, class, interdependence, humility, and virtue of all work.

At this point in the script, we haven’t learnt much about DR SHIRLEY. We have hints of TONY’s discomfort, but I haven’t seen the movie. Both are going to adjust — it’s eight weeks of symbiotic survival — it is clear it will be a relationship based on immense trust given by one guy and reciprocated loyalty by other, probably glued together initially only by the large paycheck and with how they are towards DOLORES. One is sensitive and loyal to her, and the other is preemptively sensitive to the demand put on her. In the audiences mind, as of now differences shimmer in all five dimensions and up until now, I among them wouldn’t have counted them. Darn. Wow Nick, et al. Does everyone know Nick is Tony’s real-life son?

[Sandeep Gupta]

Arguably both characters were well set up in the audience’s mind, and this scene serves to heighten tension. DOC is staged on the legend WYATT EARP’s side, and JOHNNY arrives snatching the autograph with impunity. Wyatt’s associates, including Doc are reserved and calm, to Johnny’s company brash, arrogant and dominating the scene. Doc steps up to test the waters and nudge the balance back with words. This, and the fact that these guys are towering over the scene starts the tension, has them stand out, and Wyatt’s gun under the table tells us this is getting dangerous, escalating the drama.

Even as we are introduced to DOC as under the weather, signaling confidence “in his prime,” he is rooted either in his history, in whatever was the righteous principle on the Frontier, or noticing Johnny’s incorrect pronunciation, or knowing the outlaw is only spinning a balanced gun made for this. He on the other hand knows he can spin even a lopsided cup with the same dexterity, without being provocative. So, he has measured the man and the challenge because he knows what they are doing.

Not drawing on the first 30 pages, this is clearly where the equation would be introduced. Traits are introduced in contrasts, in narcissism, in health, attitude, respect for the law, humor, and erudition, e.g. The Future is clearly mirroring the encounter, echoing a requiescat. I am not sure how wounds show up here except whatever it is that is the making of the bully, and the strong but infirm protagonist. There could be a layer as well, if we were to read Doc had caught the mispronunciation in the “evidently….” Afterall, he was a dentist in the 1800s.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Jim, thank you, i do need to learn from students with more experience. see, most of the last two decades I have not seen any movies, and most of you have. so i was only trying to come up to the class level by reading the screenplay. sometimes, e.g., Sleepless in Seattle, a lot of beautiful lines by Nora herself got edited out. so i add the caveat, as my ignorance of the actual Vance movie annoyed someone recently. not justifying it, i was just attempting to preempt a distraction. i was already one by posting much, didn’t realize my typo corrections sent you all yet another message — which probably annoyed Chris, along with my not being familiar with Vance story and relying on the scene alone. : ) i appreciate your reminder.

[Sandeep Gupta]

[Based on preliminary rethinking only, no rewrite yet but it seems I am getting closer.]

Even the characters I know well in my screenplays, were based only on personalities I imagined and the goals and attitudes I gave them. For one I would be missing out on some key scenes if I didn’t think it through on what we learnt {traits, right character, …} last week. The challenge now, would be not just think those, also to keep these in mind. Gosh I lucked out procrastinating. Packing them in later, it seems would be twice the challenge even if not a page one rewrite.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Minus nuances I may have missed in the documentary section of this screenplay (and in no way detracting from it’s 7 Oscar noms) there is a match between CHARLES and RED and between RED and SEABISCUIT. The latter is quite visible in the scene, the former is the attitude of the two gentlemen. Charles answers MARCELA with ~ “We don’t need anything, really (not just all this,)” and Red takes the first dollars he has made, to his father who needs it — and Red does it in a time when everything was falling apart, and a couple of dollars could go a long way for him. Clearly it was a big deal because POLLARD SR., nearly recoiled at the idea of taking it from his son. Last bit I got so far, all three are courageous with a fighting spirit. That would have us happy I guess that all three guys who just impressed us, are finally meeting after the *epic* storytelling.

[Based on reading the first however many pages of the screenplay until the scene arrives, and watching the scene. Can’t stop wondering, why is this screenplay so European? Both Laura and Gary are American…]

[Sandeep Gupta]

Other than the obvious, we are tricked into believing they are going separate ways, or rather motivated into rooting for them harder as they, oh no, travel into two *different* directions. The script is literally textbook for mirrored, reflected, and key-lock complementary questions, answers, and traits, as far as I read in the first pages up to this scene.

The most noticeable dramatic foundation is the character’s profile. On the inside, ANNIE is her mother’s daughter, a romantic and wounded by patterning herself on the outside on the dull rational side of her family.

She is freer, believer-regardless, and limned indirectly as wanting something more, not knowing what that is, right up until the point Sam’s mention of “magic” knocks her out of her Pavlovian orbit. She knows something is out there — now that a peer, non-parental figure mentioned it, she still doesn’t know it, and neither do we, till we presume it when he takes her “hand” 90 minutes later. All this, the *screenplay* set it up before anyone else was called in.

Her “rational” trait is contrasted with her mother and her first boss, and we unwittingly fall for feeling a smug “gotcha” when she falls for both that she just *give or take 18 months* disavowed. And now we know why those who know writing revere Nora, albeit Jeff and David may have something to do with it too.

[Drawing from the scene, the screenplay, some videos and from Memory. Facts I use here may not be in the final movie. Also, after reading the room for a week, happy to dial back from the sharing the formal breakthroughs and insight reconstruction. Also doesn’t advertise my utter ignorance up until taking this class.]

[Sandeep Gupta]

thank you Laree!

hi SU officially senior students, please show us how this works so we can exchange messages / PDFs without posting our emails publicly.

no hurry, i am a few days from sharing.

hi Class, given the size of our group, and being new, i will happily read for more than one person, if you do like my noisiness so far. sorry for being the loudest.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi, since we’ve started here, yes feedback exchange page for week one has appeared twice and disappeared. i too don’t know how to connect for messages, it definitely would help the interaction, reading the room so far. i also have a bit to go before I am ready to share a scene, although looking forward to it. i’ve already asked customer support, and they usually answer pretty much soon in office hours.

[Sandeep Gupta]

As I arrived at the profound statement at the end of insights and breakthroughs, “Darn, this matters like crazy for that one cray-cray scene that we somehow always see set immediately past the …”

I have to rethink depth and fictionalize aspects for characters that so far I thought I knew because I knew them. Meh. Dull life has consequences, I guess.

[Sandeep Gupta]

For context, the first revelation begins with SKY confronting WILL after his stubborn refusal to go to California with her. She has seen through him, caught his lies, is onto his unconscious irrational fear, and still loves him deeply enough to want him to trust her. So she fights back when he resists and denies being scared. Then Will, in escalating-denials hurls the burnt stereotype he has maybe seen or somehow just projected from his insecurities. That forces her to say something she may never have had a reason even to say to herself. In the world she grew up in, that may not have become an evident-truth till a moment before the accusation. See my take in second insight, below.

Insight
The first petit-insight/breakthrough is the complimentary nature of their wounds. From these scenes Sky’s lack is her father’s memory since her early teens, ergo her attraction to a boy infinitely taller than her peers, and protective. That explains the depth of her willingness to give it a shot.

In reference to why I feel Sky is also making that discovery for the first time is I believe her strong cathexis on Will is subconscious, making it the second insight here. [I2]

See breakthrough below why I think this is true and why it is worthy of note.

I don’t know if this next one will qualify for a full insight as I haven’t figured out so far why Will thinks she is the one. Other than for one her delicate sensibilities can come across as vulnerabilities to him and trigger his need to protect. He is sharp enough to recognize her intense sensitivity and strength, and yet fumbles at the “proof” he needs because she uses a word so foreign to him by disuse and early abuse. She says “she feels she knows it.” Last time wherever that boy reached out for empathy from a parental figure he was burnt with stubs and beaten. That’s my take at shrinking this scene’s character motivations.

Why am I talking like I know these two, and care so much? That’s fourth. Brilliant writing brings 115 pages to full lives.

Breakthrough
For one, I2 was not an accident. For Sky’s relational-need to be subconscious, she had to have grown up in a fairly stable home. I doubt anyone stakes out for a significant other that mirrors their parent or even knows it till later, that’s if lucky. For her to want what she wants, the alternative e.g., would be for her to be on a reform crusade, and not just “recognizing” the one. For that she would require a very different upbringing. And it would kill the story with the character design being so on the nose and predictable, because she wouldn’t be this demure, sexiest, mysterious, sensitive girl “not really fishing for anyone” at the bar. That’s my breakthrough within the major breakthrough “Darn, this ___ matters.”

Let’s go see what y’all got. Feedback very welcome. If you sound angry at me, I might silently take your advice for free and not respond to give you credit.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: peritext

[Sandeep Gupta]

The lessons from today’s class fell together so late that I didn’t even have time to rethink a scene, leave aside rewrite which I am hoping to defer for a bit. I did learn two lessons today and they both have to do with the gestalt. So much of the story we read was mediated by these personalities. Second, screenwriting is probably easy only when we know nothing. Should’ve taken advantage of my ignorance. : D

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: answered to Jim at the wrong level, writing my answer here instead

[Sandeep Gupta]

First of all, considering LOST is considered to be one of the greatest TV dramas ever, it will be naïve to draw conclusions without upsetting someone who is way more qualified than me. If you are likely to be upset about my ignorance, it will be a-ok to not read this, and my sincere apologies. Regardless, I am going to presume only the set-up explained in this lesson and from these three scenes.

Insights
If these scenes are in sequence, then the first insight/petit-breakthrough is that secrets are revealed progressively, in a quickly escalating sequence. The first one results in us wondering along with JACK, as to what KATE did, and are probably not imagining anything more than minor trouble. Next, in her scene with SAWYER just we are almost falling in love with her innocence and vulnerability, there is this stunning reveal.

Done to us at the very moment we were nearly ready to trust her with our life, only to then next find in the third scene that she is a standard issue demolition machine — in spite the soft blithe-spirit psyche cast (Evangeline) into that role. Can’t believe that was adventitious, and definitely hope it wouldn’t be left to chance in my stories.

Second, there is an impact on her relationships with Jack in the first scene, which from my ignorance I can’t really measure, and I am imagining it is what I thought, nothing too terrible. Even then we know Jack the idealist is definitely going to be rattled and arguably the audience worried about their relationship.

Sawyer on the other hand in the second scene, seems to bond with her more with that revelation if he is telling the truth. The genius here seems to be that both men go in different directions, Sawyer calmer and more settled than ever, however now our demand for reveal is more intense. Killed someone? This Evangeline? What happened? Was it in self-defense? What was done to her by the idiot(s) she killed?

Lastly, her relationship with us, the audience is completely up-side down after the last scene. Started with her seeming a victim and turns out she ate lunch with Rambo. Now we are wondering why she did it, and did she get away with it? What is she capable of? What else has she done and what will she do next? The questions we are asking at each “emotional turning-point” with them, remarkably aren’t even anywhere close to the previous one. Oh JJ.

Finally, not counting that IBV model is useful even in these scenes where there is not much push and pull, the third — clearly this escalating intensity of demand, is also not accidental but manifesting the “rising action” dictum, emotionally.

Breakthroughs
First box-breaker for me — secrets have a typology, dimensions, and grade, and so, not entirely sure if most insights listed above don’t belong here instead.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: oh, not just the browser. i also miss typos until my ignorance is public. typos are my allies. sometimes

[Sandeep Gupta]

I am still not prepared to rewrite a scene before the end of the week even though I am part convinced it may be procrastination or laziness. Seems wiser though as these lessons are fairly integral.

In any case I did have two big lessons from this one, to help me rethink stiffer scenes. One is the IBV model to plan a characters’ emotional journeys, and the other was the slow reveal of a character’s traits that late into the story that make us like them even more. And keep it interesting.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Actually, this lesson does solve a problem I had. I have stories that are loosely, still too closely based on reality resulting in some key pages as dull as me. I had concerns about affecting the purity of intent or of exaggeration should I naïvely make things larger. Apparently, all I have to do is to make thinks larger, and also have a tool to invent a story that stays close to the truth, intensifies the premise and does not feel dishonest.

[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 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: threw in a couple of words, for the same price

[Sandeep Gupta]

Insights
In one sense this scene is close to the bar scene we just studied. Even if this one is as much past the midpoint as the other one was past the movie opening. And even if it’s emotionally so different, as like Will at the bar, we are getting the first glimpse of Sarah’s would-be-protagonist skills. And in this case, with all her timid and dazed characterization up until this scene which I can’t fully recall — this is probably the first look at how natural and take-charge she is when it comes to taking care of what Kyle caught. In terms of the recent vocabulary¹, they both have breakthroughs and insights. One into the future and one into the past. Kyle does get a validation with a glimpse of more than her eyes, i.e., her spunk and natural skill. Unlike the cerulean scene, there is no power or boundary imbalance (or not any more at this point) so each breakthrough or insight is also validation for the other. For one, that seems useful insight into the modeling for the writing and the acting of a scene.

¹ {Insights, Breakthroughs, Validation} adopted by me to also model the character’s emotional trajectory.

Breakthroughs
By SU definition seems I now have three breakthroughs here. For one, I didn’t know the last sentence in Insights paragraph above, so at least for me that counts.

Next, even this late we are discovering new traits of each protagonist (even if one is only a projected one at this point and only to those who’ve seen the movie.) Who’d have thunk.

Next, a comparison of cerulean and this one along these lines shows why a two person talking heads scene, even if a most important scene in my own screenplay is only intense in my head and so dull on the page. And that’s my haul for the day. OK kids, off to dinner after that I will go see, whatcha’ll haul!

—
It’s also somewhat reassuring also that in the future us guys are probably not so clueless that we would instead blurt, “Well Sarah, I am the …”

Afterthought
It seems my focus was only on my newfound IBV emotional structure of the scene for both, and how it begins Sarah’s transformation arc than completely how it relates to and seeds the future. After reading everyone’s I returned to the scene. Kyle comes living into the future knowing what he is doing. Sarah begins to believe there is one very different from what she had expected it to be, and literally doesn’t know what she is doing and how she will do it. In some sense Kyle arrives a hero, Sarah suddenly has a heroic future thrust on her.

Most nuances of that transitions have already been noted by students whose answers I have read, so I will just say this. It makes them great characters as (a) Sarah’s wheels are already turning, she has accepted the reality stoically as has (b) Kyle, who knows who he is, who he will become in about 20 pages, and that he will not even make it back into that future with her or to see their son succeed. Interestingly, on the surface level I was not aware of observing all these details consciously. Evidently, I must have at some level. Because I did want to write these three words somewhere in my original post, “What a mensch!”

Dunno if it’s an insight or a breakthrough, that that’s the reason we have to work on these details. Isn’t that an answer to the question I asked yesterday about Matt and Ben’s writing?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: formatting, and the whole "Afterthought" section
• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: removed html tags unnecessarily html'ing
• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: dumped the html tags that decided to visit the post

[Sandeep Gupta]

posted this paragraph in the other one. pasting it here.

Rewriting/Rethinking: I will have to revisit this, thinking at the end of the week’s lessons, unless I get convincing advice otherwise. Seems like there are forty variables in a scene from today’s lessons alone that need to settle-in before I try to rewrite/rethink a scene without my head exploding. But I will be trying to rethink. Right now, off to watch the movie in full.

NOTE: the comment in the other assignment, re disproportionate number of traits came from Paul McGregor’s post here. Small wonder I couldn’t find it.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: html tags dropped in somehow. also, credit to Paul

[Sandeep Gupta]

Insights: For one, on closer look WILL exhibits a lot more traits than I expected. I am still wondering if that’s just rich and talented writing or planned. Based on just this scene, he exhibits a ton of golden traits. He is altruistic, seems kind, shy and yet not shy of one-upping a blowhard bully; clearly a precocious genius, he must have been self-motivated, is confident, loyal, and doesn’t take himself seriously. From this scene, the only smidge is his contempt for Harvard grads. I don’t blame him though, : D some HU alums are just as annoying as Mark. An insight I also picked from an answer in the last hour I don’t see posted now, Will exhibits disproportionately more traits than the other two. SKYLAR is kind, spunky, non-confrontational, has a sense of humor (re Chuckie), and likely shy and deep, based on her silent admiration noticing Will’s depth. CHUCKIE appears shallow, overconfident, every bit a player, but I suspect if I watch the movie, he will come out way deeper than in this scene where neither guile nor pettiness is beneath him. Again, barely two dimensional compared to like six for Will, and MARK has a single dimension. I am guessing though, the other characters will show more depth as the acts develop. The other big insight for me, I don’t think I am clear if these need to be planned in advanced or decorated post facto. The number of dimensions for traits from just today’s two scenes (cerulean, and this) are mind-blowingly large.

Breakthrough: This came while integrating the opening lecture and watching the scene. {Validation, Insight, Breakthrough} isn’t just a model for us writers learning, but also of these characters on the screen. It will be simpler if I use DWP as an example. (not LADWP!) MIRANDA alters ANDY’s reality forcing an abrupt breakthrough shattering Andy’s cool; and validates her own position and “opera” she orchestrates. These ({B, V}) get inverted by the end of the movie — and that by itself offers a model to plot the emotional arc. Finally, a lot of insight into the scene for us are mediated by the insights of the characters as we watch their reactions. In a smaller measure, the same breakthrough/validation is happening to everyone in the scene, except to Will, with Chuckie and Morgan riding on the wave Will creates.

Rewriting/Rethinking: I will have to revisit this, thinking at the end of the week’s lessons, unless I get convincing advice otherwise. Seems like there are forty variables in a scene from today’s lessons alone that need to settle-in before I try to rewrite/rethink a scene without my head exploding. But I will be trying to rethink. Right now, off to watch the movie in full.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: disambiguated a few sentences, clarified a concept
• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: typos

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi, i am Sandeep, (pronounced sun+deep, d soft, as in the)

i wrote half a first draft of four i found a story to contain, and realized my intense drama was missing intense and drama.

and then suddenly my life went into a 2 year spin on an adventure. still rebooting.

up until today my hope from this class was to get depth for character design, now i am looking at working on these concepts over outlines, instead of post writing. finally, procrastination and life on spin-cycles may have paid off! it would be much harder to rewrite than to prewrite, right?

i might not be this talkative once i start class assignments. which would be unusual about me, i think. unique thing — i didn’t start with taking acting and writing classes daring to imagine or hope for a career in them. albeit just to make sense of my life and to be funnier for my niece!

really great to read you all. if y’all have plausibility questions about engineering or computer science, or India, for your screenplay or story, try me. only warranty — i wouldn’t bluff if i don’t have a clue.

alright, onwards all aboard!

[Sandeep Gupta]

I, Sandeep Gupta, agree to the terms of this release form, i e., as a member of this group, I agree to the following §§1–6.

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.

Thanks,

Sandeep

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: deleted html tags that appeared in cut and paste

[Sandeep Gupta]

Day 5, Rolled Stone Villain’s Great Plan

Lesson: Perhaps Day 4 scared the lights out of me. It will take work to create something that matches the coherent complexity of those two plus the audience maturity that must be 30 years later today. In that light, what I limned on day 2, can’t happen fast by winging and needs to be woven, lest it spaghetti or smörgåsbord. Regardless, seems like we got a way coming up here, now that I can begin to see how thrillers work.

____

Villain’s Goal

1. Keep the international embezzlement and illegal espionage circle hidden

Plan

1. Prevent the protagonist from surfacing in the 1st world.

2. Contain, use, or eliminate the protagonist to hide how he was being used.

Cover-up

1. Import packaged as a radical political activist to work in a think tank.

2. Contain him when his politics turns out to be a wild card.

3. Ascribe disruptive agenda and rebrand him a spy.

4. Redefine as a double agent when that fails.

5. Use a medical cartel to contain him.

6. Stamp him as enemy of the state, potential exposure risk, call for treadstone.

Sequence

Cover-up 1–6, at this point, some items, esp., 5 may be spread in earlier steps.

____

Leaving this first attempt here Clearly I am slow, albeit this is useful context, so goal — As the world is getting ready for a quantum leap in technology and governance, a clique of well connected bureaucrats, academics, doctors and politicians are determined to restore / maintain the old order they miss because of the stupid internet, and at the threshold, is the protagonist. A walking spanner in their established ways of archaic rube-goldbergs and arcana, but has none of the smarts of the high achievers, or savvy or clue of those who’ve decided that not only an ersatz foreign policy of deceit, obfuscation, and compromise are the cost of doing business in the third world, it is actually needed for keeping upstarts in line.

So the devious plan is to subdue, violently violate, threaten him and those dear to him, isolate, use, and destroy this threat, much of which is their own creation for covering reverse espionage, extortion, and embezzlement.

And the cover up is almost successfully accomplished by packaging the protagonist with a creative stretch and representations of truths fused with outright lies as he is bought and sold across rogue NOC rings each with a different agenda.

Much of this is accomplished by a sequence of shill ops, recruitments, containments, and private agenda of each ring of this circus that configures, reconfigures or hands-off the protagonist to the next buyer. Is all this with help from a sorority of operatives,.or inspite them? That’s part of the fun, if I can pull it off as amusing as it is in my head. I don’t know what more to say of the sequence, which for me, would mean I decide on the plot at this point before I’ve looked at days six–eight at least.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: I didn't get it in the first attempt. Hopefully I've begun to get it now. It's hard for me to create a story from a very boring reality. Surprised me how emotionally difficult it is

[Sandeep Gupta]

Day 4. Assignment 2. The Silence of the Lambs Lessons

Unfortunately these two exercises were very hard for me. This one in particular. I have completed it from the script. It took much longer and turned out to be harder from the page, although I now think I should work Basic Instinct or another, from the script as well.

Observations:

First thing I noticed was not just the presence of these elements, but they are constantly plucked, thrummed and escalated to intensify them. And in most non-trivial scenes, all these elements are present. No way I was ever aware of this much complexity while watching / reading a scene.

The other spinner is, Ted Tally is way ahead of me at least in binding this so tight and unraveling mystery and intrigue consequences fast. I didn’t go into most scenes knowing or asking questions other than the agents’ safety, albeit discovering things via the protagonist, or even Lecter!

Actually, he gets away with this one : ) leap when she figures where Gumbs is, just by keeping that pace. By that time we’ve surrendered to her (and the script) because of this stacked but coherent complexity occupying everything from our basal ganglia through frontal cortex.

On a broader level, the action prior to the climax is in three places. As if it wasn’t enough for him to stack these elements, scenes are also stacked. There is at least one transition in the script that brilliantly serves two purposes.

Finally, I am not sure if my answers are not missing something. While I can understand, if I am not wrong, a lot of times there will be an overlap in scene MIS and character MIS, too often I had to resort to things not in the scene, but in our consciousness prominently. Especially stakes. Maybe I have to go over this again? Is there a movie just this complex but not so graphic?

This one also had about the same number of scenes. What stood out was both Hannibal’s escape and chez Gumbs scenes, are like ten pages. Of these, I think at least the second scene should be seen as three, to fully understand all seven elements. That in itself was a revelation. I counted at least six different major emotions evoked rapidfire in this one.

Comments anyone? We are supposed to be talking, right? But of course you all are so far ahead of me at this point.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: Pytotypo ; )
• This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: Typo

[Sandeep Gupta]

Day 4 Assignment 1. Basic Instinct Lessons

One thing that stood out in this movie, it achieved closure without closure, not just in the movie, in every scene. No evidence is definite or complete, nothing that doesn’t leave open the possibility that it was planted or may have been washed. Not even decidable if Katherine is the arch villain, an IA overseeing IA, or an innocent, albeit spoilt heiress avoiding entrapment. There is equipotent evidence of all three possibilities. Beth could have been too easily framed too, the evidence isn’t enough that she lied about the message. Finally, there’s no motivation on anyone’s part to kill Gus. These pervasive and brilliant ambiguities that lead to the intrigue around unsolved mysteries was achieved by design, not just by plot, also by character personalities, attachment/detachment, and character relationships — that is my big insight here. Also, if I am not missing something, there are only two scenes with a solid, non mechanical, non trivial suspense. That surprises me, not just by paucity, also that I didn’t notice it until hour or two after watching it.

___

PS. I had not read the conclusions in the next assignment before writing this. It wasn’t the idea to contradict, just what I saw.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: Postscript

[Sandeep Gupta]

Rolled Stone, World and Characters

(Rolled Stone is a working title. It is a High Concept title only if you’ve already seen the movie so really neither high enough nor fulfilling the marketing purpose. It’s just an interim beacon for me.)

Lesson I learnt, what it takes to watch and opine on a blockbuster thriller is pitifully nothing compared to planning writing one when your thriller years had none of the excitement, even with an import not worth losing.

Recap, M•I•S Is the hired ideologue a spy or a double agent with a foreign agenda instead? • This operative is an unwitting decoy for illegitimate cross border espionage, extortion, and embezzlement among high ranking officials, NOC ops and politicians. • Will he succumb or survive a scheme that needs him erased before he discovers the truth?

Storyworld Smooth talking innocence and idealism meet perverted echelons of international power where truth is a commodity and liberty, propriety, frailer than proprietary interests of those entrusted to secure the ship. Death and destruction are chess moves, but who pulls the strings? From where?

Hero Likely just a smooth talker with no depth and easily reeled out of water by big fish that live in the post cold war swamp, except he has no gills and dodges the swamp — because there, he can’t breathe.

M•I•S Who is he and what’s he up to? • Why did he turn on his hosts? • Will he survive? Will the Republic?

Handlers (may or may not be supporting the hero) A sorority of independent operatives with unknown loyalties and indecipherable agenda because what you read is what they’d want you to read. No less, no more. But do you know what that is? And there is always more.

M•I•S Are they putty, or plaster cast? • They are leading him somewhere, looks like slaughter, but it isn’t, isn’t it? • What will they do once they see he betrays their cause over and over?

Communicators (Men in the middle, or Mensch?) Liaison between the hero and the puppeteers of the singleton-gulag.

M•I•S Can we tell if they are pawns, predators, or policing? • Cui Bono? Can anyone follow the money? • Will they break the hero?

Villain Who knows who that is? Is it the Handlers? The Communicators? The Hero? Politicians? Bureaucrats? Businesses? Some of them? All of them?

M•I•S What have they spun to hide reverse espionage, extortion and embezzlement? • How do they operate? • Will they come unglued, or will they annihilate the truth, and the hero?

[Sandeep Gupta]

Sandeep’s class screenplay big MIS

I learned the difference between imagining a story and writing it is particularly way less in imagination than in reality if you are abstracting and presenting a lesson from reality. So I should write it out instead of typing it from my head.

Rolled Stone A covertly imported ace liberal operative being treadstoned must win over his fervently feminist handler to escape, except that he betrayed her cause, thrice.

Oblivious to where he is, what he is cast into, and how flimsy the rule of Law is in that mold, the Hero has bad habits — reading too much, agreeing too much, and slipping out of commitments.

Secret clique behind explosions, deaths, set-ups, and threats for him to conform, hidden in the establishment in plain sight, as if the benign establishment, Villain.

His life, loved ones, everything he dreamt the Countries and Constitutions meant and promised, and his soul. To gain a Country and lose his soul or be destroyed for truths evident. Stakes.

Not only “wrong” answer means deaths, he realizes he is being contained in faux situations which reconfigure at whim. If he makes one mistake and is eliminated, nobody would know or care and he’d have failed in what he thinks was his one job.

And I haven’t the foggiest clue why this could be thrilling. It’s based on insight from a very boring person’s very painfully boring life but I don’t want to hold that against the core observation. It is interfering with my other script, thought I’d run it here. Please help me fix it!

Mystery: Who is this guy? Why does he get away with a smooth answer for everything? Why did he turn on those that imported him? Is he a double agent? Is he even an agent? What does he want? What has he done?

Intrigue: A racket with new modalities of industrial-secrets theft and extortion, namely “corporal (sic, yes not corporate) espionage,” reverse documentation, perversion of official secrecy privileges.

Suspense: They picked on the wrong guy, but is he right enough to even question, far less destroy the racket of those that can sweep high crimes under a shrug — even if an explosion. Is he a rolling stone, or a rolled cannon?

Can a man have (and is it worth it) to have his conscience instead of a creed?

• This reply was modified 3 years ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: bold text button created a wrong style tag for html/css

[Sandeep Gupta]

Under Siege (1992) Thriller Conventions

I learned the model lets me observe and hold on to a lot more detail.

Casey Rybeck, clueless why he is provoked, is sealed in a reefer unknowing of the unthinkable upstairs on the battleship, but he’s more than a cook, he’s an extraordinary Navy SEAL. Hero.

Strannix, an arch-trained battleship/sub destroyer and Krill, de facto in-charge have the skills and ice in their veins. Villains.

USS Missouri is under seige, sailors are being killed or drowned, Warheads are at risk, and then the entire population of Honolulu. High Stakes, yes also all Life and Death, in scenes or silence.

OMG we need another line to reason why it’s thrilling? Casey doesn’t relent. What did I miss?

Mystery: for Casey, what happened, how to stop it, for us, what are they doing?

Intrigue, for Casey, who, where, what the ___. The plan to steal Nuclear Warheads complete with access to launch codes.

Suspense: Fail = loss of more sailors, stolen Tomahawks, insta-fried Honolulu + humiliated US.

This is likely an exceptional movie, I don’t know how it did and how it is perceived today for certain stereotypes. What made it so riveting other than great writing, tight and rising stakes is Steven, Elena, Tommy Lee and Gary are so committed to the roles, and the cinematography doesn’t suck even 30 years later. Andrew, the director wove it all so well I am still not laughing how 20 jerks overran a USS battleship. Not the least, also refreshing even in 2022, Elena’s transformation from unwilling hapless pliable victim to a heroine. Rocks!

[Sandeep Gupta]

I Sandeep Gupta, agree to the terms of this release form.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Everyone!

I am Sandeep Gupta, for real. I’ve written exactly 0.56 script. Intended to write an intense drama, and missed a few things when I set it on the page — (a) intense, (b) drama — so I feel this is a class to sort that and it tracks. Re me unusual is I just look like I have a clue.

[Sandeep Gupta]

how is the air now, Deb?

[Sandeep Gupta]

: ) i guess “softer” was not on this show’s palette. kinda Guernica.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Paul, thank you so much, and i feel badly you are locked out for quite a bit. double checking, were you able to send a message to support @ screenwritingu dot com? i think the zendesk form isn’t reaching them.

quick question — any of you all got access to Week 3 Audio? I didn’t see that page.

by the way, i am not going away anywhere — hopefully — hopefully i will have some scene review opportunities with some of you, maybe easier if we have messaging work. i am certain we have lifetime access to this course, and i always subscribe to the topic once i post my answer. so if any of you post, i will get to it. i actually look forward to it, and now that the classes are “done” i hope to spend more time with everyone’s answers.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thanks for saying this Larry — absolutely remarkable how none of us remembered (or wrote) how profoundly meaningful and spontaneous those lines must have been when they hit us the first time. One of those moments when I am going, goodness what else did I miss and where else!

[Sandeep Gupta]

No worries Jim, I really appreciate it and also, not a problem at all, we’ve all been there done that — I guess comes with being writers. If I had a count for each time I skipped the first two lines and jumped to watch the scene or couldn’t read what I had scribbled yesterday …

[Sandeep Gupta]

None of us have anything nice to say about Cypher, although funny, in different ways. You are right, one common factor may have been that except the supremely lucky we’ve all felt betrayal.

In re me, I have to say I am not one for the rebirth while one is still alive regardless of what people expect and I want to hold on to the entire life I was born with, with integrity …

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Paul. i hope she wins, and so do you with this story!

[Sandeep Gupta]

terrific log line hiding in there Paul. amazing story!

[Sandeep Gupta]

right Paul, absolutely. although i’ve read we have the liberty of indicating a shot, e.g., “the phone has a message,” or in this case, “a hand gestures.” maybe even, “Only now we are face to face, with VITO CORLEONE, 60…,” for the associational moment Deb caught.

[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 …

[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.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Truly appreciate your comment, Larry. I figure we are here to share insights, but if they were only upsetting people, I was happy to hold them back. Although given how long my answer is on today’s assignment (Godfather) I wonder if you regret complimenting : D

That sequence is brilliant, I hope to distil my answer into simpler principles. Up until date I hadn’t one clue it opened with two 90+ second monologues. And I have watched it a few times. Or a hundred.

[Sandeep Gupta]

i did Trish, you haven’t opened up DMs, so i can’t send. mine are open. again, at www twitter com / screenwriting_1 and you don’t have to follow me there. anyone can DM me.

[Sandeep Gupta]

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

[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.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Deb, the story is actually good. If you get a chance, see it.

[Sandeep Gupta]

just sent you a reply on your first message with a link.

thanks Trish…

[Sandeep Gupta]

if it helps, it seems you have DMs (private messages) disabled. mine are open. you should see a message icon on https://twitter.com/screenwriting_1

it is not a commercial account, plain amateur, guaranteed to not be commercial : )

Tweets by screenwriting_1

[Sandeep Gupta]

right, since 1997 on internet some even claimed my neighborhood and same mother’s name. please message me @ screenwriting_1 on Twitter. DMs (direct messages) are open, no need to follow me there. since you are new, Tweets are public, please use DM for class discussion.

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Deb, you are right, and maybe I am just being lazy. i actually do understand what he says re rewrites, this is even more refined. it is possible I took a harder problem. if i had totally made up the story maybe I would have less trouble visualizing one change at a time. and i had missed the “brainstorming” bit thanks, i will go back and find the opening lecture. i will give rewrites a shot this weekend.

[Sandeep Gupta]

______

Leona, you are so welcome, and thanks for understanding. I can consider creating an email when I have a moment. At this point I am fresh out of addresses that I am using to investigate the mess. It is not a matter of trust; it is so bad that I couldn’t follow my own sister’s post and support in her final years. But Facebook decided other Sandeep Guptas should connect to her, not me…

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thanks Patricia, I appreciate it. In general, it is a good idea for screenwriters to be on twitter. It’s like walking to a studio parking lot and shooting pleasant¹ breeze with other writers, and impromptu tutorials by great screenwriters when, e.g., they are stuck at the airport or in the cab. I personally don’t do it as much as I should, but I have posted info on that account for new writers to find screenwriting twitter, trades, people like Hal, ….

¹ yes it sometimes turns out too much drama. but unlike a parking lot, you can click away!

[Sandeep Gupta]

I do have email Leona, but I am still figuring out who’s hunting my account/identity, so slightly reluctant to share email. Twitter DM is super easy. Just look for the DM icon, click, enter screenwriting_1, paste your scene there. Twitter does the safety check for us. You don’t need to follow me there to DM me.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thanks, yes Patricia I am doubly honored. Are you on Twitter? I love WordPerfect, but I haven’t used that wonderful editor for 33 years! Formatting shortcuts must be so fun for you. So glad it is around.

At the moment, the best way would be to exchange only text cut and paste. If Twitter DMs are an option, they seem safe, secure, and Twitter quality of text safety. Making a Twitter Account is easy if you don’t have one. I just posted my open DM details to Leona. Please let me know if this will work.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Leona, would it be possible to cut and paste the scene on a DM in Twitter? It takes 10,000 characters per message, that’s enough for a huge scene — actually 3.5 pages of full text. I have an account that’s open to DMs, my intent was solely to anonymously help screenwriters newer than me, but happy to interact with senior writers as well. It is @ screenwriting_1

[Sandeep Gupta]

Absolutely! Thank you Leona.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Paul, yes, the dates occasionally got jumbled. i did let Zendesk (customer support) know and they fixed it for me in another class. for me, no class is available today, and two tomorrow. i guess we should figure that out before we can share scripts.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thank you Leona. I appreciate it. : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Bo, good to meet you, and with that trailer, what an entrance! this is your first? it has amazing sound, edit, and does spike serious curiosity. by the way, if you can edit the link, please remove the wbr tag and angle brackets. otherwise the link wouldn’t work.

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Karyn, nice catch re ticking clock i don’t think any of us wrote noticing it being integral to drama, and of., the traits as you do.

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks Paul, i’ve almost finished watching the movie for the first time today and looking at it in pieces and out of order. there is one more set up to his reluctance, and if you hadn’t mentioned this, i wouldn’t have noticed it but it is relevant. wouldn’t spoil your surprise. very humbly, it is probably not the Robin Williams you don’t like (talk shows / GMV? i hear you!) in this one he is showing his nom comedy chops. it is also not the movie loglined to me as about an abused boy but it is a Matt movie. it’s brilliant. he had terrific depth as a kid too, clearly.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Paul, why do you think we don’t know why he is scared of going to California. I mean what am I missing? Didn’t he make it clear and then Skylar confronted it to be his defense mechanism? What’s the doubt I didn’t catch?

Aside — didn’t figure how / if connections work, but the idea to try that was to possibly point out quietly that Deb Johnson’s explanation of living into the future, and the dictionary meaning of prolepsis seem to add more understanding to the concept.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: clarification

[Sandeep Gupta]

: )

[Sandeep Gupta]

shoot, i hadn’t realize that (rule of three being used.) thank you!

[Sandeep Gupta]

that’s a good nuance Lawrence. i hadn’t noticed there’s a role reversal at that moment.

[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.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Oh darn, you are on to me, Chris!!! Very curious what gave me away?

[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 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: typo aleady : D

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thanks Karyn, what an astute and comprehensive list of traits. Yeah, I see them now.

[Sandeep Gupta]

ha ha, scared ya! in real life i tell people to feel free to call me anything including hey you, it’s good as long as i know they are talking to me.

seriously Paul, yes, i agree. at the risk of being an apple-polisher, the selection is not just excellent entertainment, also inspiring characters.

[Sandeep Gupta]

oh, you are right, absolutely. i mean we didn’t notice the long dialog, it turns so fast.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Paul, I hear you, I also had to reread the lesson because the phrase captures something in the beginning of lesson, something my brain didn’t catch until I figured I am missing something just because I am not catching the phrase. Will living it into the future connect? (“it” being the transformation and resistance to it, every moment.) I don’t know if I am right, just that’s my understanding of it.

[Sandeep Gupta]

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

[Sandeep Gupta]

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

[Sandeep Gupta]

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

[Sandeep Gupta]

two good points Karyn! share more so us old people aren’t only talking among ourselves : D

[Sandeep Gupta]

Yeah, : ) I went over the lines once I read it in someone’s answer and realized I’ve been had. It is amazing how technically well he¹ pulled it off. It is multisensory, multi-dimensional, multi-tone sequence. Small wonder I had no clue it was pure exposition. The man is a genius, he also steered totally clear of all the time-travel debate by Sarah declaring at some point that it is too maddeningly crazy. So we believe it is a reality she is really dealing with, and happily go with her.

¹ Solely going by this discourse also being in the fourth draft, before Gale is (officially?) named on the screenplay.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Very comprehensive Paul, I appreciate it. I have to watch the scene again now. Brilliant interpretation of the eyes line. Now I can’t unsee it.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: added two more sentences

[Sandeep Gupta]

Nick, thanks for including the gradient, I had totally missed it!

[Sandeep Gupta]

nice — i had totally missed J and G snuck in the exposition with “just talk!” subtle. now i can’t unsee it! thank you!

[Sandeep Gupta]

Thanks, and Hi Paul, actually no idea of his name — amazing, I skipped typing Papal Nuncio, and you had the word. If it helps, Autumn-Winter 1981-82, India. Very smart and friendly guy, I’d cast him as Bond. Apparently, I didn’t get into trouble for singlehandedly convincing the music teacher to let us sing romantic songs and not all…. Funny story, instead we wild kids got invited to the biggest show in the Archdiocese. Ditto re my UN/UNDP stint. Ten years after I demonstrated a totally impractical but working network to help school kids with science homework, I was invited to help a UN/GOI project to build pieces of what we now call the Internet. Also the beginning of my screenwriting material bank, I think. I didn’t know it. You must know so much more about high wire hi jinx. Wish we could swap notes. Good to know of you at least! Trilingual, and that it wasn’t Latin. Darn. Here I had imagined a whole other convo! : D

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: clarified a possesive
• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: , added the last three sentences
• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: oh darn typos. why dost thou!

[Sandeep Gupta]

thanks for the phrase “final flex,” it’s equivalent in effect and importance as a punchline : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

definitely, brilliant acting and writing. you are right, that “busy” action definitely seals her status as the dean of fashion industry, not just a boss. thanks, it hadn’t occurred to me.

[Sandeep Gupta]

you are right. it is dialog heavy, but goes at a good pace.

[Sandeep Gupta]

ah! thanks!! almost did not notice the cute meet. not my fault. not had any lately.

[Sandeep Gupta]

Lawrence, did you find it? Look up your courses from the menu.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Karyn, another old newbie here. i hear you. certainly an underestimated and relentless load. watched it take a toll on people. wish more of them made a choice to write so we know that healthcare needs attention. scary experience too sometimes. best…

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Rita, oh wow. great attitude to kick that grief alongside.

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Leona! i have heard of these movies — does that mean they were remade or that famous? re my comment to Jim, aren’t comedy characters harder? or is it just me : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Jim! do you also fly that thing? awesome portfolio. i’d say you come with a lot of character insights — comedy scripts are harder than jokes : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Susan, such a perfect hobby for understanding and imagining ensemble dynamics! cool!

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Paul, congratulations on your Film Festival win! curious, what language did you speak to the Popes? i once entertained Pope’s ambassador, and also worked on a UN stint.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by  Sandeep Gupta. Reason: deleted an extra "did"

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Carol, a stew that takes 16 years is likely to be hot!

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Patricia!

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Ann! looking forward to read what you’ll share!

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Patrick! i’ve seen your virtual cousins on Chicago Fire, so with deep appreciation for your service…

[Sandeep Gupta]

that should mean he has this quirky backstory of a character that…

right?

[Sandeep Gupta]

oh man, Nick. sorry bro, can’t say i feel sorry when i am about to chuckle at both you sports at Halloween. eRite in peace : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

hi Larry — you are way more disciplined than i am! : )

[Sandeep Gupta]

good to read your message Dave. if you have a TV, you could project your screen to it. if it helps you read. chromecast like devices can sometimes be found for $10. just Google it.

[Sandeep Gupta]

i came back to redo exercise 5, and saw your answer. wish i had paid attention before, but apparently i had to work it out myself. still, thanks, borrowing some hints from here.