John Michael Hayes, 1953
From reading the Wikipedia article on this film, I think it's historically significant. It seems like this was the first film to explore the ideas of voyeurism and suspecting your neighbors. So that's pretty neat.
I feel similarly about these movie as I feel about Psycho. Like, I feel like it's culturally significant, but reading it now, it doesn't seem... that great? Or very new?
To be honest, finishing this screenplay didn't really make me feel anything. I didn't feel amazed, or amused, or touched, or even bored. I just felt impartial. It certainly wasn't a bad screenplay, but it didn't wow me.
So I'm not going to write an extensive review or analysis until I can appreciate it more, because I really feel like I should. Maybe I'll try watching it, or reading it again sometime. Maybe I'll ask a film student for help.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Day 15: No Country For Old Men
Joel and Ethan Coen, 2006
Armature: The world has a harshness that can't be stopped. Or, there will never stop being savagery in the world.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time Sheriff Bell wanted to hold off the evils of the world, so he became a Sheriff at the young age of 25.
2. And every day, he dealt with terrible crimes that seemed to have no point.
3. Until one day, the man Llewelyn Moss stumbles across an abandoned murder site and steals a case full of $2 million.
4. Because of this, Anton Chigurh hunts him down and finds him. Sheriff Bell, meanwhile, investigates it all.
5. Because of this Moss tries to run, but is inevitably killed.
6. Until finally, Chigurh kills Moss' wife because he once said he would.
7. And ever since that day, Sheriff Bell has retired.
This is quite the pessimistic screenplay. It moves me because it's terrible. It's rock-hard and serious and terrible, and makes me fear mankind a little. But I will say some things about it, because the fact that it makes me feel that way means it has done its job.
The Coen brothers really know how to tell a story visually. Most of this movie is not dialogue. The Coens have incredible control over what shots they want, and they describe almost every shot in the screenplay. They only include shots that are absolutely necessary. They recognize that the audience is smart, and can put 2 and 2 together. A lot of writers/directors do not have that much trust in the audience's abilities. The plot is also really quite straightforward, so there is nothing complex that needs to be explained through dialogue.
The Coen brothers understand that a complex story is not what makes a story powerful. The plot of this film is pretty simple and straightforward, but the audience is on edge the entire time. Nothing is skipped over, and nobody is giving long exposition speeches. Everything that must be shown is shown, and that is plenty.
This is how you make something simple into something powerful.
I also love just the format of this film in general. The main character is not Llewelyn Moss, it is Sheriff Bell. We hear a voice-over from Bell at the beginning to establish the beginning of his tale. The chase between Moss and Chigurh is the meat of the plot, but it is only significant because it is means something to Bell. When Moss dies, it's okay. We are affected by it, and maybe even surprised, but we aren't sad about it. Because Moss isn't the main character, and neither is his wife.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it: Moss is not the character of change. We don't even get resolution with what happens to Chigurh, because the justice of what happens to him isn't the story's point. Chirgurh is more of a tool to demonstrate Bell's fears about the cruelty of the world that he cannot hold at bay.
I wonder why the Coens chose to write a story about this.
Armature: The world has a harshness that can't be stopped. Or, there will never stop being savagery in the world.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time Sheriff Bell wanted to hold off the evils of the world, so he became a Sheriff at the young age of 25.
2. And every day, he dealt with terrible crimes that seemed to have no point.
3. Until one day, the man Llewelyn Moss stumbles across an abandoned murder site and steals a case full of $2 million.
4. Because of this, Anton Chigurh hunts him down and finds him. Sheriff Bell, meanwhile, investigates it all.
5. Because of this Moss tries to run, but is inevitably killed.
6. Until finally, Chigurh kills Moss' wife because he once said he would.
7. And ever since that day, Sheriff Bell has retired.
This is quite the pessimistic screenplay. It moves me because it's terrible. It's rock-hard and serious and terrible, and makes me fear mankind a little. But I will say some things about it, because the fact that it makes me feel that way means it has done its job.
The Coen brothers really know how to tell a story visually. Most of this movie is not dialogue. The Coens have incredible control over what shots they want, and they describe almost every shot in the screenplay. They only include shots that are absolutely necessary. They recognize that the audience is smart, and can put 2 and 2 together. A lot of writers/directors do not have that much trust in the audience's abilities. The plot is also really quite straightforward, so there is nothing complex that needs to be explained through dialogue.
The Coen brothers understand that a complex story is not what makes a story powerful. The plot of this film is pretty simple and straightforward, but the audience is on edge the entire time. Nothing is skipped over, and nobody is giving long exposition speeches. Everything that must be shown is shown, and that is plenty.
This is how you make something simple into something powerful.
I also love just the format of this film in general. The main character is not Llewelyn Moss, it is Sheriff Bell. We hear a voice-over from Bell at the beginning to establish the beginning of his tale. The chase between Moss and Chigurh is the meat of the plot, but it is only significant because it is means something to Bell. When Moss dies, it's okay. We are affected by it, and maybe even surprised, but we aren't sad about it. Because Moss isn't the main character, and neither is his wife.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it: Moss is not the character of change. We don't even get resolution with what happens to Chigurh, because the justice of what happens to him isn't the story's point. Chirgurh is more of a tool to demonstrate Bell's fears about the cruelty of the world that he cannot hold at bay.
I wonder why the Coens chose to write a story about this.
Day 14: Forrest Gump
I have never seen this movie before. I actually knew very little about it, up until a few hours ago. I knew that it was a classic, and that Forrest does a lot of running. So I wasn't prepared for what this script was going to tell me, and it caught me off-guard and moved me. A lot.
Armature (Just ripping this right out of the script, because I can't say it better than Forrest): I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both.
Several things happen in the script that support this armature. There are two characters who each express their opposing opinions on destiny, and several events happen that seem to support each opinion. But what gets me most about this armature is the meta way that the script demonstrates it.
This script begins with a feather that floats around and lands on Forrest's shoe. I thought it was a really great opening shot, because it set the viewer up for a story about a man who wanders all over through life. But at the end, Forrest tosses aside the feather and it floats away, and the camera follows it. This strongly implies that we, the viewers, have been following the feather through the whole story, not Forrest. We began with the feather, and we listened to Forrest's life story as he told it because we were still with him. But when he lets the feather go, we leave Forrest with the feather.
We are the feather. This story is about us, not about Forrest.
And this armature applies directly to us. Forrest has a beautiful life story, but in the end, he's just one more person we encounter as we float through our own lives. We find Forrest, spend some time with him, and then leave him. Just like Forrest found and left all those things he encountered in his life.
This means that the movie is going one step beyond what a lot of movies do. It is my belief that a good movie (or just a good story in general) tells you something meaningful about your life. You learn from the movie by connecting with the characters, and you (as a viewer) learn something by watching the characters change and grow. But this film takes it further. Forrest Gump is directly reaching out to us, the audience, and applying the lesson to our own lives.
This explains the entire format of the movie. Most of it is Forrest narrating his life as people listen to him on a bus stop bench. Why would this be the format? Why does Forrest need to narrate everything, when we could just as easily see it for ourselves? Why do people keep listening to him? These scenes are including us, the audience, as listeners in his story. We, as the feather, are also watching him as he talks, and listening to what he has to say. Just like if we were to meet him in person. Those people who miss their buses to hear his story are just like us as we watch the movie. But life goes on, and Forrest leaves his listeners as the bus stop, and leaves us when he shakes the feather away. And we leave him when the movie is over.
Heck, the title of the movie even supports this concept. "Forrest Gump" is the name of the man who tells us his story the whole time. It's like a label of someone you can talk to if you choose to drift by him, like labeling the coffee shop or the street you're on. As if to say, "In these two hours, your life will pass by Forrest Gump." The title is not something creative and meaningful, it's just a label.
The more I think about this screenplay, the more I respect it. I strongly believe that a powerful story is best told by just saying what you mean to say, and letting style follow. This movie does just that. A counter example would be something like Moonrise Kingdom, which has more focus on style.
One of my favorite quotes is from Brian McDonald's book "The Golden Theme": "Art is not to show people who you are, it is to show people who they are. If the artist digs down deep inside, finds the deepest part of himself, and exposes it to the world, the artist will disappear and the audience will only see themselves." I think Forrest Gump proves this quote exceptionally.
Armature (Just ripping this right out of the script, because I can't say it better than Forrest): I don't know if we each have a destiny, or if we're all just floating around accidental-like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe it's both.
Several things happen in the script that support this armature. There are two characters who each express their opposing opinions on destiny, and several events happen that seem to support each opinion. But what gets me most about this armature is the meta way that the script demonstrates it.
This script begins with a feather that floats around and lands on Forrest's shoe. I thought it was a really great opening shot, because it set the viewer up for a story about a man who wanders all over through life. But at the end, Forrest tosses aside the feather and it floats away, and the camera follows it. This strongly implies that we, the viewers, have been following the feather through the whole story, not Forrest. We began with the feather, and we listened to Forrest's life story as he told it because we were still with him. But when he lets the feather go, we leave Forrest with the feather.
We are the feather. This story is about us, not about Forrest.
And this armature applies directly to us. Forrest has a beautiful life story, but in the end, he's just one more person we encounter as we float through our own lives. We find Forrest, spend some time with him, and then leave him. Just like Forrest found and left all those things he encountered in his life.
This means that the movie is going one step beyond what a lot of movies do. It is my belief that a good movie (or just a good story in general) tells you something meaningful about your life. You learn from the movie by connecting with the characters, and you (as a viewer) learn something by watching the characters change and grow. But this film takes it further. Forrest Gump is directly reaching out to us, the audience, and applying the lesson to our own lives.
This explains the entire format of the movie. Most of it is Forrest narrating his life as people listen to him on a bus stop bench. Why would this be the format? Why does Forrest need to narrate everything, when we could just as easily see it for ourselves? Why do people keep listening to him? These scenes are including us, the audience, as listeners in his story. We, as the feather, are also watching him as he talks, and listening to what he has to say. Just like if we were to meet him in person. Those people who miss their buses to hear his story are just like us as we watch the movie. But life goes on, and Forrest leaves his listeners as the bus stop, and leaves us when he shakes the feather away. And we leave him when the movie is over.
Heck, the title of the movie even supports this concept. "Forrest Gump" is the name of the man who tells us his story the whole time. It's like a label of someone you can talk to if you choose to drift by him, like labeling the coffee shop or the street you're on. As if to say, "In these two hours, your life will pass by Forrest Gump." The title is not something creative and meaningful, it's just a label.
The more I think about this screenplay, the more I respect it. I strongly believe that a powerful story is best told by just saying what you mean to say, and letting style follow. This movie does just that. A counter example would be something like Moonrise Kingdom, which has more focus on style.
One of my favorite quotes is from Brian McDonald's book "The Golden Theme": "Art is not to show people who you are, it is to show people who they are. If the artist digs down deep inside, finds the deepest part of himself, and exposes it to the world, the artist will disappear and the audience will only see themselves." I think Forrest Gump proves this quote exceptionally.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Day 13: The Big Lebowski
The Coen brothers, undated
I feel a little foolish admitting this, but I honestly have no idea what I just read. This script seemed to have no point whatsoever. I don't actually know what was the primary conflict, and what was the climax, and why it resolved the way it did.
Was it a Dude vs. Walter thing? Why did Donny die? Why was there that crazy fight with the Germans? Why was the narrator even a character at all? I don't... I don't understand.
The wikipedia page had a quote from Joel Coen that this movie "has a hopelessly complex plot that's ultimately unimportant." So does that mean the plot didn't even matter? What was the point of this movie? Was it about the Dude's journey of... becoming more... something?
Maybe I need to see it to understand it. Someone please help me out here. I am so confused.
I feel a little foolish admitting this, but I honestly have no idea what I just read. This script seemed to have no point whatsoever. I don't actually know what was the primary conflict, and what was the climax, and why it resolved the way it did.
Was it a Dude vs. Walter thing? Why did Donny die? Why was there that crazy fight with the Germans? Why was the narrator even a character at all? I don't... I don't understand.
The wikipedia page had a quote from Joel Coen that this movie "has a hopelessly complex plot that's ultimately unimportant." So does that mean the plot didn't even matter? What was the point of this movie? Was it about the Dude's journey of... becoming more... something?
Maybe I need to see it to understand it. Someone please help me out here. I am so confused.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Day 12: ParaNorman
Chris Butler, no date given
What I love about animated movies is how they can tell a powerful message through an exaggerated situation. Movies shot with actors are reaching that point, with CG and everything nowadays. But the medium of animation allows for just about any kind of special effect, or any kind of strange world. ParaNorman is animated because it can tell its simple message under the dressing of some beautiful effects and a wonderful visual style.
Armature: Sometimes when people get scared they say and do terrible things. (Norman literally states this in the climax.)
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time, 11-year-old Norman could speak to ghosts.
2. And every day he was picked on by people at school, and even by his own family.
3. Until one day, the witch who was buried in the town long ago wakes up (along with all the zombies buried with her), and Norman is told by his mysterious uncle that he is the only one who can put her back to sleep.
4. Because of this, Norman and a few others (who don't really understand what's going on) go to the town hall to find out where the witch was buried, while the town forms an angry mob to fend off the zombies.
5. Because of this, Norman receives a vision and understands that the zombies need Norman's help to stop the witch.
6. Until finally Norman goes to the witch's grave, and instead of putting her back to sleep for a hundred years he talks to her and puts her to rest for good.
7. And ever since that day, Norman's family has been more understanding of him.
I'm a bit fascinated by this story because the main character is not actually the character of change. The characters of change are actually everybody except Norman. The antagonist changes when Norman gives her understanding instead of fear. The townspeople change when Norman finally gets them to listen to the zombies' plight. Norman himself is more like the embodiment of a solution to the armature. Norman is like the wise sage who teaches his wisdom to others through his actions.
But Norman is only 11 years old. Isn't that interesting?
Also, the people in this movie are not portrayed very well. They are all characterized by their fakeness, their vanity, their impatience, their selfishness. And once Norman solves everything and they being to understand, the townsfolk still do not admit their own fault. The people are ugly and imperfect. But Norman does not feel he needs to make everyone better people, he just wants to make them listen and understand. In fact, he accepts that others are mean and cruel. But he knows that doesn't mean he should be the same way. Thinking about it this way, this film is actually quite the impressive critique on our society.
I wish I could say more good things about this movie, but it really just explains itself quite well. ParaNorman is exceptionally well written and I wish more people would see it. It has some powerful lessons worth learning.
What I love about animated movies is how they can tell a powerful message through an exaggerated situation. Movies shot with actors are reaching that point, with CG and everything nowadays. But the medium of animation allows for just about any kind of special effect, or any kind of strange world. ParaNorman is animated because it can tell its simple message under the dressing of some beautiful effects and a wonderful visual style.
Armature: Sometimes when people get scared they say and do terrible things. (Norman literally states this in the climax.)
7 steps:
1. Once upon a time, 11-year-old Norman could speak to ghosts.
2. And every day he was picked on by people at school, and even by his own family.
3. Until one day, the witch who was buried in the town long ago wakes up (along with all the zombies buried with her), and Norman is told by his mysterious uncle that he is the only one who can put her back to sleep.
4. Because of this, Norman and a few others (who don't really understand what's going on) go to the town hall to find out where the witch was buried, while the town forms an angry mob to fend off the zombies.
5. Because of this, Norman receives a vision and understands that the zombies need Norman's help to stop the witch.
6. Until finally Norman goes to the witch's grave, and instead of putting her back to sleep for a hundred years he talks to her and puts her to rest for good.
7. And ever since that day, Norman's family has been more understanding of him.
I'm a bit fascinated by this story because the main character is not actually the character of change. The characters of change are actually everybody except Norman. The antagonist changes when Norman gives her understanding instead of fear. The townspeople change when Norman finally gets them to listen to the zombies' plight. Norman himself is more like the embodiment of a solution to the armature. Norman is like the wise sage who teaches his wisdom to others through his actions.
But Norman is only 11 years old. Isn't that interesting?
Also, the people in this movie are not portrayed very well. They are all characterized by their fakeness, their vanity, their impatience, their selfishness. And once Norman solves everything and they being to understand, the townsfolk still do not admit their own fault. The people are ugly and imperfect. But Norman does not feel he needs to make everyone better people, he just wants to make them listen and understand. In fact, he accepts that others are mean and cruel. But he knows that doesn't mean he should be the same way. Thinking about it this way, this film is actually quite the impressive critique on our society.
I wish I could say more good things about this movie, but it really just explains itself quite well. ParaNorman is exceptionally well written and I wish more people would see it. It has some powerful lessons worth learning.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Day 11: Sideways
Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, 2003
I am not sure how to feel about this one. I just finished it a few minutes ago and I feel like I really need to think about it.
It must be infinitely easier to understand a movie when you're watching it, instead of reading it. Because I know there has to be something awesome about this screenplay, because it's number 90 on the list of top 101 screenplays of all time. It's listed higher than "Grapes of Wrath," which I loved. Something about watching a movie allows you to keep track of events better than reading, because it's easy to zone out while reading. Or maybe I'm just making up excuses.
Why am I not sure how to feel about it?
Well, it's a comedy movie. A few events happen that would probably be funny to see, but everything seems serious when you read it (in my opinion, at least). So I can't tell if what parts were supposed to be funny and what was dramatic. Secondly, I can tell that the writers really knew what they were doing. There are some really good moments. A few shots are composed really well, and the visual metaphor of the main character's anxiety being like tightrope-walking is pretty smart.
But, you see, I'm not completely sure what it's about. I think it's saying something like "seize life" or "don't let the good things pass you by," but I really am not sure. I know Miles was the main character, going through some kind of change involving seizing the day. But I don't really know why Jack was a character, or what his purpose was. I think he was to show contrast to Miles and convince Miles to do some stuff, but overall he seemed to be kind of insensitive to Miles' troubles. So what purpose did he serve?
I... don't know. I think I need to read this script again, or see the movie or something, so I can understand it better. I just feel.. puzzled.
I am not sure how to feel about this one. I just finished it a few minutes ago and I feel like I really need to think about it.
It must be infinitely easier to understand a movie when you're watching it, instead of reading it. Because I know there has to be something awesome about this screenplay, because it's number 90 on the list of top 101 screenplays of all time. It's listed higher than "Grapes of Wrath," which I loved. Something about watching a movie allows you to keep track of events better than reading, because it's easy to zone out while reading. Or maybe I'm just making up excuses.
Why am I not sure how to feel about it?
Well, it's a comedy movie. A few events happen that would probably be funny to see, but everything seems serious when you read it (in my opinion, at least). So I can't tell if what parts were supposed to be funny and what was dramatic. Secondly, I can tell that the writers really knew what they were doing. There are some really good moments. A few shots are composed really well, and the visual metaphor of the main character's anxiety being like tightrope-walking is pretty smart.
But, you see, I'm not completely sure what it's about. I think it's saying something like "seize life" or "don't let the good things pass you by," but I really am not sure. I know Miles was the main character, going through some kind of change involving seizing the day. But I don't really know why Jack was a character, or what his purpose was. I think he was to show contrast to Miles and convince Miles to do some stuff, but overall he seemed to be kind of insensitive to Miles' troubles. So what purpose did he serve?
I... don't know. I think I need to read this script again, or see the movie or something, so I can understand it better. I just feel.. puzzled.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Day 10: Paper Moon
Alvin Sargent, 1972
You guys. I can't. I just finished this script a minute ago and oh god it is so good, it makes me tear up. I just. Ahh it is so good. Brian McDonald recommended this one, and I am so glad I finally read it. I'd really like to see it in movie form, too.
Armature: Family comes from relationships, not necessarily blood.
Before I try applying the 7 steps, I first want to mention what I love about this script. It is just so simple. The story is simple: a young girl spends some time with her maybe-father and, after a series of events that bond them together, chooses him as her family over her stranger blood relatives. There really isn't much to it. Moze and Addie dislike each other in the beginning, but steadily help each other out and, by the end, come to need each other.
This simplicity is what's so beautiful. There is nothing extraneous in this story. No time is spent on Addie's pre-Moze life, because it doesn't matter. There is no explanation of what the two of them do after the climax, because it doesn't matter. We never even find out if Moze is actually Addie's father, because it doesn't matter. Only the plot points that bring the two closer are included, because those make the story.
The problem with a lot of movies nowadays is that they feel they must be complex to be good. I strongly disagree with this idea. Simplicity and precision gets the armature across better, and thus makes a more satisfying movie. Paper Moon proves that.
This script is also brilliant at precision in visual storytelling. So many ideas get across without any speech. All of the reasoning behind Moze and Addie's con schemes are explained visually. The bible-selling sequence is the best example of this. That kind of precision takes a lot of skill to construct.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, the con man Moze Pray is stuck transporting his potential daughter Addie to her nearest blood relatives after her mother dies.
2. And every day Moze makes money by conning people, trying to make enough to pay back Addie.
3. Until one day, Addie helps Moze in his cons and helps make them more money.
4. Because of this, Addie helps Moze in business and keeps him from losing all his money to a gold digger.
5. Because of this Moze and Addie get in over their heads with the law and lose everything.
6. Until finally, Moze takes Addie to her welcoming blood aunt, but Addie runs away and finds Moze again.
7. And ever since that day the two have stayed together as family.
As usual, I'm not sure how the 7 steps apply here. It's arguable that step 3 ("until one day") is actually when Moze gets initially stuck with Addie, or when Moze steals Addie's $200 and she calls him out on it. The reason I think that Addie helping Moze in his bible cons is step 3 is because that seems to be a major turning point in their story and relationship. That's the moment that their father-daughter relationship begins to build.
There doesn't actually seem to be a large act 1 in this movie. That's more of why I put that step 3 there. The exposition comes across pretty fast in the first scene, but the couple scenes after that (Moze trying to get money out of someone, Addie being stubborn about her $200) continue to establish some character traits. So perhaps those scenes could still be part of act 1.
Hmm. Well. I feel like placing exactly the right scene on each step is overall less important than understanding that the focus and precision in this script is what makes it really good.
You guys. I can't. I just finished this script a minute ago and oh god it is so good, it makes me tear up. I just. Ahh it is so good. Brian McDonald recommended this one, and I am so glad I finally read it. I'd really like to see it in movie form, too.
Armature: Family comes from relationships, not necessarily blood.
Before I try applying the 7 steps, I first want to mention what I love about this script. It is just so simple. The story is simple: a young girl spends some time with her maybe-father and, after a series of events that bond them together, chooses him as her family over her stranger blood relatives. There really isn't much to it. Moze and Addie dislike each other in the beginning, but steadily help each other out and, by the end, come to need each other.
This simplicity is what's so beautiful. There is nothing extraneous in this story. No time is spent on Addie's pre-Moze life, because it doesn't matter. There is no explanation of what the two of them do after the climax, because it doesn't matter. We never even find out if Moze is actually Addie's father, because it doesn't matter. Only the plot points that bring the two closer are included, because those make the story.
The problem with a lot of movies nowadays is that they feel they must be complex to be good. I strongly disagree with this idea. Simplicity and precision gets the armature across better, and thus makes a more satisfying movie. Paper Moon proves that.
This script is also brilliant at precision in visual storytelling. So many ideas get across without any speech. All of the reasoning behind Moze and Addie's con schemes are explained visually. The bible-selling sequence is the best example of this. That kind of precision takes a lot of skill to construct.
7 Steps:
1. Once upon a time, the con man Moze Pray is stuck transporting his potential daughter Addie to her nearest blood relatives after her mother dies.
2. And every day Moze makes money by conning people, trying to make enough to pay back Addie.
3. Until one day, Addie helps Moze in his cons and helps make them more money.
4. Because of this, Addie helps Moze in business and keeps him from losing all his money to a gold digger.
5. Because of this Moze and Addie get in over their heads with the law and lose everything.
6. Until finally, Moze takes Addie to her welcoming blood aunt, but Addie runs away and finds Moze again.
7. And ever since that day the two have stayed together as family.
As usual, I'm not sure how the 7 steps apply here. It's arguable that step 3 ("until one day") is actually when Moze gets initially stuck with Addie, or when Moze steals Addie's $200 and she calls him out on it. The reason I think that Addie helping Moze in his bible cons is step 3 is because that seems to be a major turning point in their story and relationship. That's the moment that their father-daughter relationship begins to build.
There doesn't actually seem to be a large act 1 in this movie. That's more of why I put that step 3 there. The exposition comes across pretty fast in the first scene, but the couple scenes after that (Moze trying to get money out of someone, Addie being stubborn about her $200) continue to establish some character traits. So perhaps those scenes could still be part of act 1.
Hmm. Well. I feel like placing exactly the right scene on each step is overall less important than understanding that the focus and precision in this script is what makes it really good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)