#screenwriting analysis

The reason I absolutely adore Seo Yul is that his Very Good Boy persona, a guy who cannot choose the woman he loves over his principles and his devotion to a cause, contrasts deliciously with Jang Uk's "fuck everything, I am getting what I want or dying in the process" attitude. Jang Uk is selfish, spoiled and lazy, Seo Yul is hard-working, shy and selfless, and they make great mirrors. And the contrast between the two just highlights why Seo Yul cannot be the one to help Naksu find redemption. Naksu and Jang Uk almost complete each other. Both are a little bit unhinged in the way they pursue what they want, both are very temperamental, and each one has strengths that compensate for another one's weakness. Seo Yul is there just to highlight the beauty of how these two very flawed characters find redemption and succes through each other.

By the way, I am not saying that the Seo Yul x Naksu dynamic couldn't make for a compelling enemies to lovers story, on the contrary, the pure difference of their characters could create a whole different kind of tension that would make people ship them even more than Jang Uk x Naksu. So why is that not the case?

A compelling Second Lead would make the viewer actually fear that the Protagonist is going to choose them over the First Lead; and ideally, also feel conflicted as to whom they want the Protagonist to end up with. A compelling Second Lead needs to have everything necessary for them to almost be the First Lead. And there are two key things that Seo Yul is missing in season one.

Number one is a motivation and a goal, really. I considered putting this as number two, but this is essential for a character, really, and part of the reason it's hard to care about Seo Yul. What the fuck does Seo Yul want? What is the huge desire that he Does Not Have? There is no such thing that is even eluded to in the show. Naksu is not what he wants, mind you, because when she theatened him with her sword he was like "oh well, guess it's not meant to be🤷‍♂️" and then sort of proceeded to not even try to figure out who she was or why she reacted the way she did.

Number two is stakes. What does he stand to lose? We, as the audience, don't really feel afraid for him, because, well... He is good at spells, he inherits the Seoho fortress so his future is chill, we know nothing of his family, and it's hard to tell why exactly he can't really do anything about his feelings for Naksu. He doesn't stand to lose his powers, his standing, his title, or anything, so like... It's hard to consider him as a real Rival for Jang Uk, because he just doesn't seem that driven. The most I can come up with is that he doesn't want to ruing his friendhip with Uk, but like... It's not as if Uk hasn't done shit to put that friendship in danger; and also in order for characters to grow they absolutely have to fuck up and do bad things to their Allies.

And, well, all that brings me to my sort of final point. If the reason Yul exists in the plot is to be Jang Uk's Rival, Ally, and his Mirror, but doesn't get much of a character arc outside of that (except for the rushed bit in the end of season one when he decided he was taking Naksu to Seoho fortress, and then ended up plagued by guilt)... He becomes a character that is kind of not necessary as himself, and he would do best fused with the character of Park Dang-gu. Hear me out, okay?

If Yul is to be Uk's Rival, why make him his Rival only for Naksu's heart? Dang-gu is the person who is to inherit the leadership of Songrim (it is what he does after season one!), and Jang Uk wants to be the leader of Songrim like his father. Dang-gu is in love with Jin Cho-yeon, and Uk is the one who has been engaged to her, twice! Just those two things would make the tension between Uk and this hypothetical Yul-Dang-gu character double what it is between Uk and Yul, or Uk and Dang-gu, and the stakes would be way higher. I like the contrast between Yul's Stoic vibe and Dang-gu's Soft vibe but it's not enough to keep you invested in both characters. And, arguably, throughout season one Dang-gu has had way more of a character arc than Yul, despite being significantly less important than him narratively...

Or, well, the other way to fix Yul's character is to give him stakes and Something To Do, which is what they did! Finally!

Part three. The Final One. I like Yul!!!😭

If he gets killed this season I am going to be so upset! Just as I started getting invested in him! Please don't boo me but I even like his and So-i romance, because that would be a great narrative arc! Like at first he wasn't willing to fight for love, and didn't think it worthwile to invest his energy into redeeming somebody and offering them a better future, and him flipping to be the opposite - that would work pretty fucking great, in my opinion😭🥰.

This season his character actually works and it's kind of great. He has stakes: poor man is dying😭, he has a (potential) romance, he has Horrible Regrets about not saving Naksu and Uk and he is very sad, instead of just being Slightly Nostalgic in season one. (Side note: I saw some fans complaining about Hwang Min Hyun's acting because of that, because we saw him with basically the same expression... I didn't really share that opinion at the time, it's not like his acting came off as specifically fake, it's just how he was written. Nostalgia is just... not a very strong emotion. And now it's clear that it was not the problem, lol.)

I am still not sure if Yul's arc really includes a Desire, or a Goal, but he is definitely more complex this season and more compelling to root for. And there are things that he Kind Of Wants, which I guess is helping Uk grieve Naksu properly before he dies, and reconciling Uk and Dang-gu after the whole problem of Jin U-tak's death, unlike of "I guess I want to catch some soulshifters" and that being his his job.

I made a New Year's resolution at the beginning of this year that I would have written at least four short films by the end of this year.  So far, I've written one.  

Let me first say that I love writing.  I really enjoy getting lost in my imagination and coming up with characters and stories that can amaze others.  For me, I absolutely love the idea of spending an entire Sunday afternoon writing at a cafe.

However, since I wrote my first film this year, I have not written anything else since.  If I love writing so much, why is it so hard for me to sit down and write?  The problem is that I start making excuses for myself.  

I'll be really busy with work one day and I'll come home exhausted and decide to take a break.  But that slip starts a dangerous snowball effect that will suddenly derail my entire writing momentum.  It's sad to say that right now, I've tumbled all the way back down to the bottom of the mountain.

When I first came up with this idea to do a screenwriting analysis series, I thought that by watching a film every week and writing about it, it would encourage me to read more scripts, watch more films, and most importantly, write more.

Initially, it did.  But I soon discovered that I was spending more time writing on this series than actually writing films.  I started using the screenwriting analysis as an excuse not to read scripts or watch films.  There would be days where I'd really want to watch something, but I wouldn't allow myself too because I felt I should be focusing on analyzing one of Wes's films.  Eventually, this project that I created to inspire me to write more had evolved into another excuse for me to write less.

I stopped writing after a while and whenever I felt that I should start working on one of my film ideas, I would say something like "I'll start it after I finish analyzing this next film and writing about it."  I almost felt that it took some sort of divine intervention for me to write the last one on The Darjeeling Limited.  Not only was I not writing, but I was beginning to loathe something that I'm passionate about.  I even stopped writing down notes and carrying a notepad with me.

The fact of the matter is I had fallen off the horse.  But instead of getting back on, I was blaming it all on this series.  Now, with only two months left in this year, it's become very clear that I have little time left if I want to achieve my goal of writing four shorts.

This is why I'm announcing that I'm ending the Screenwriting Analysis series.  As much as I enjoyed doing these, they've become a liability for me and a inhibitor in my actual writing.  I just need to write.  Period.  And while analyzing films may help me become a better writer, it's not going to help me actually write (which is what I need to be doing).

Maybe somewhere down the line when I have more time, I'll come back to analyzing some more scenes and films.  But until then, I have some writing to do.

With all that said, please enjoy my favorite scene from Fantastic Mr. Fox:

Interesting to note that Rabbit's wife was not originally included in this version of the script.

There is some dialogue that was not in this version of the script where Fox asks if everyone is with him.

There is some silence and then Mrs. Fox is the first to agree, followed by everyone else.

  Linda raises her hand instead of having the others point to her in the film.

The second part of Fox's line (Do you do that...) as well as the field mouse's response was removed from the final film.  [Makes sense to me, since Kyle is already sort of the meek character in the group)]

Well, that's that!  I'll post a link when my new blog goes live.  I'll also throw some updates out on my own personal scripts when I have the chance.  Wish me luck!

After watching the scene in the film and comparing it to what was originally written in the script, I strongly feel that removing that extra portion was the best decision.

It is interesting to see Peter interact with the boy tangled to the raft.  During this time, he even comes to terms with his fear of being of a father with the boy, which is an important reveal.  However, this interaction doesn't contribute to the overall scene (even though it does advance a part of Peter's character).

The juxtaposition between Peter and the boy laughing with the overall tension of the scene becomes jarring and I feel if that part of the scene was left in the film, the overall scene would lose its overall dramatical impact.

This moment is one of the most critical moments in the film because it is the first time the Whitman brothers come together and put aside their differences.  The death of the child greatly affects all the characters and the event is the catalyst that starts bringing the brothers together.  As a result, it's extremely critical that this scene conveys that sense of terror and suspense.  By removing the extra dialogue between Peter and the child, Wes and company made sure that the scene did not drag on and lose it's overall impact.

Recently, I entered a short screenwriting contest where I was given a character, a subject, and a genre and had five days to write a twelve page screenplay.  For my assignment, I was given: a waitress, reputation (subject), and comedy (luckily).  It took me six drafts before I finished a screenplay that I was satisfied with.  Unfortunately, I didn't advance on to the next round.

The great thing about the contest was that they provided me with some feedback on my script.  While the judges liked my comedic writing, they felt that I could cut a lot out of my script.  Some of their comments included:

"Get in and out of your scenes faster, you have a lot of room to cut dialogue and say less which will make it stronger and more visual."

"Every scene should help him get closer to achieving or not achieving his goal, see if you can find a way for the chess scene with the homeless guy to be part of his goal.  If not, it should be cut even if funny because it doesn't help to tell your story."

As you can see, there was a really funny scene in my screenplay that involved the main character playing chess with a homeless man.  Although it was pretty funny, it didn't really advance the story and I really should have altered it or cut it.

This screenplay analysis shows that even though you write something completely amazing, less can be more - especially if it doesn't contribute to the overall scene or story.

Tune in next week for Fantastic Mr. Fox!

One thing I especially like about the screenwriting in this scene is the amount of detail Wes actually wrote in the script such as the sticker that says, "No more than six (6) passengers permitted at any time."  This simple detail brilliantly illustrates the claustrophobic space in the Deep Search without cluttering the script with a lot of unnecessary details.  A great example of being detailed yet concise!

This is probably one of my favorite scenes of all time in any movie and I think it's an amazing example of Bill Murray's acting.  He perfectly conveys the sense of emotion that Steve Zissou is feeling in the script.

By reading scripts and then watching films, an aspiring screenwriter learns how to properly shape his or her story into the proper structure.

Stay tuned for next week’s screenwriting analysis on The Darjeeling Limited!

Characters the viewer can understand and relate to will always make a movie richer.  Richard Walter, author of Screenwriting: The Art, Craft, and Business of Film and Television Writing, states “Complicated characters, rounded and whole, are infinitely more fun than folks whose entire book can be read in a single superficial flash.  And nothing renders characters- even lying, scheming, conniving fiends - fleshy and full like a pinch of sympathetic human understanding.” (p. 71).  Simply put, a sympathetic character can turn an entertaining film into spectacular film.

Let’s step away from The Royal Tenenbaums for just a second.  Compare Colonel Miles Quaritch, the villain in Avatar, to Ben Wade, the villain in 3:10 To Yuma.  Two villains, but what makes them so different?  The answer is we’re sympathetic towards Wade and not Quaritch.  Quaritch has no redeeming qualities about him, which makes him the perfect one-dimensional bad guy.  Once he’s dead, we stop caring.  On the other hand, we feel sorry for Ben Wade because we understand him.  We find out about his history: his father was killed and his mother abandoned him while he was reading the bible, which gave him a warped sense of what was right and wrong.  

We learn there is some good deep down inside of Wade, which makes the ending of 3:10 to Yuma more dramatic.  When Wade finally decides to do some good, it gets Dan Evans, the very man he’s trying to help, killed.  We feel extremely sorry for Wade because we know he's been struggling with the concept of good and evil his whole life.  The fact that we feel bad for the villain of the movie is a testament about sympathetic characters.  As Walter states, “Sympathy for one’s characters raises a tale above the mindless equation in which everything fits perfectly but is also quite perfectly dull.”  (P. 71)

Back to The Royal Tenenbaums, I think all the characters in the film are rather important but for the sake of this analysis, I'd like to focus only on Royal and Chas.  Let’s take a look at their flaws first:

Royal: Technically, he should be considered the antagonist of this film.  He abandons his wonderful wife (who he admits to not being faithful with) and his three brilliant children.  Only when he runs out of money and learns that his wife is involved with another man does he attempt to reestablish contact with them (by lying about having cancer). 

Chas:  Chas is an obsessive compulsive and paranoid man.  When his father comes back into his life under the premise of having cancer, he is the only one who greets him with distain and anger.  Moreover, Chas is completely overprotective of his children to the point where if he doesn’t change, they will grow up to be just like him.

If I were to just give you these two summaries of Royal and Chas, you would probably think they are terrible people.  However, the film humanizes both characters by providing the viewer with some context to understand them:

Royal:  As Royal lives in his house with his family, he realizes the damage that he’s caused to both his family and friends.  The longer he stays there, the more determined he becomes to fix everything.  That’s why when Ethlene finds out that he’s lying about his cancer and kicks him out, we feel bad for him because we know that his intentions are now sincere.

Chas:  Chas has a very estranged relationship with his father.  Chas will never forget the feeling of betrayal the day his dad shot him with a BB gun.  Moreover, Chas’s distain for his father grows as he and his sister, Margot, are always excluded from the activities in which Royal only takes Richie.  

Finally, we understand Chas’s need to be overprotective of his children.  They survived a plane crash that killed their mother.

As Royal lives in his house with his family, he begins to see the negative influence Chas is having over his sons' lives.  He realizes that if someone doesn’t step in to fix things, Ari and Uzi will become just like their father.  It's a step in the right direction for Royal, but ultimately it doesn't fix his relationship with Chas.

It takes the entire course of the film for Royal to realize that it's not enough for him to just come back into his children's lives and try and make their relationship work.  He must also admit to the sins of his past and ask forgiveness.  Royal finally repairs the damage he's caused Chas at the end of the film in a heart-touching scene where he not only saves Chas's sons' lives, he also gives them a new dog: 

This scene is so powerful because over the course of this film, we have been sympathizing with both characters.  We knew that Royal was selfish, which is why his change of heart is more heartwarming.  And we know that Chas has every right to hate his father, which makes his acceptance of the apology even more touching.  By sympathizing with these characters, we become much more involved with their lives than we would ever imagine.

Richard Walter states, “Human treatment of human characters inevitably provides for heightened drama, a goal screenwriters ought consummately to desire.” (P. 75)  I whole-heartedly agree.  No one in this world is truly one-dimensional.  We all have our reasons and motivations that secretly drive us, so why can’t our fictional characters?  By humanizing characters in screenplays and making them sympathetic, a screenwriter can create a serious relationship between the character and the viewer.

I'm going to end this analysis with just a few more screens that I didn't really have anywhere else to place:

  Stay tuned for next week’s screenwriting analysis on my favorite Wes Anderson film, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou!

That course is to show and not tell.  One of the things I love about screenwriting is that it depends heavily on the visual image.  A screenwriter must know what their film looks like so that when someone picks up a script, they know exactly what they're looking at.  No one wants to watch a movie where someone only talks about how they did something or describes a location that they went to.  People want to actually see what they did and where they went.  This means that details about characters and settings must be setup visually instead of spoken through dialogue.  The viewer wants to watch something instead of being told and that's why it's always important for a screenwriter to find ways to show and not tell.

"Oh, I really just put that up there as a joke. That's probably the hardest geometry problem in the world."

Rushmore immediately begins to show and not tell at the beginning of the film.  Max is a student at Rushmore Academy who has a delusional view of his world.  For Max, Rushmore is his life.  He's dedicated everything he has to this school because he enjoys it there.  Naturally, he assumes that his peers regard him highly as one of the best students in the entire school.  

Wes and Owen do not convey this through dialogue.  There is no scene where Max is talking to his father and lying that his friends were incredibly happy that he solved an extremely difficult geometry problem.  Instead, Wes and Owen decided to convey Max's delusional view of the world visually.  By actually showing how Max perceives his world, the viewer can immediately identify with Max to see where his character is coming from.

Reality.

Unfortunately for Max, the harsh reality of his life is that he is one of the worst students at Rushmore Academy.  In scene shortly after, Max is put on "Sudden Death Academic Probation" by Dr. Guggenheim because his grades are down.  Dr. Guggenheim explains (albeit via an ADR), "Too many extracurricular activities, not enough studying."  Again, Wes and Owen brilliantly show the viewer all of Max's activities instead of telling them.

Wes and Owen could have easily had Dr. Guggenheim read a list of all the activities Max participates in.  While this ongoing list would be humorous, the viewer would never actually have a grasp on Max in these roles.  But by showing the viewer every single one of these activities, the viewer really understands how much time Max is dedicating to his extracurriculars.  The viewer understands that Max isn't that guy who does a bunch of stuff to get into a good college, but he actually cares about each one of these activities regardless of how absurd each one is.  So by the time Dr. Guggenheim says, "Too many extracurricular activities...", the viewer completely understands.

Another fantastic example of showing and not telling takes place during the escalating battle between Max and Herman Blume.  Both characters fall in love with Ms. Cross; however, in the end she chooses Herman over Max.  Again, Max could have easily voiced his feeling of betrayal and anguish to Blume.  There could have been a scene where both men argue how they are more in love with her.

Instead, the film shows thew two men fighting against each other.  Max and Herman are at war and the film shows the extraordinary lengths that each of them will go to in order to have Ms. Cross for themselves.  To see these two characters trying to outdo one another is not only more entertaining than hearing them argue, but it also demonstrates how childish this battle really is.

Even small details in Rushmore can be shown instead of told.  During the middle of the film, Max is expelled from Rushmore Academy and must attend Grover Cleveland High School.  Max loses the one thing he loves the most and it is obvious that Grover Cleveland cannot compare.  But again, Wes and Owen never have Max talking about why Grover Cleveland High School is a terrible school.  They show it:

There is an amazing shot where Max sneaks out of Grover Cleveland to go back to Rushmore.  The two shots clearly illustrate the differences between the two schools.  As Max leaves Grover Cleveland High School, the viewer sees the rusted sign that explains students are subjected to search for weapons and drugs that hangs on a chain-link fence.  The school is practically a prison.  As Max arrives at Rushmore, the viewer can see the clear difference between the two schools.  Rushmore has an immaculate sign that's hung on an iron fence with an amazingly cared for landscape (Thanks Mr. Littlejeans!).  The two contrasting shots clearly show what Max lost when he was expelled from Rushmore.

One of the reasons why I think Rushmore is such a fantastic film is because the script is amazing.  Wes and Owen made sure to take every opportunity they could to show and not tell.  As a result, every single line of dialogue in the film has a purpose, which makes the film concise and never drag.  In the end, the viewer is left with an amazing story that is masterfully crafted through visuals and writing.

Stay tuned for next week's analysis on The Royal Tenebaums!

I should point out that I'm not going to give a full synopsis of the movie; so if you haven't seen the film yet and are trying to follow along, I recommend watching the film first or at least finding an appropriate

summary

.

Anyway, I think the biggest thing a screenwriter can take from Bottle Rocket is the development of the main characters, Anthony and Dignan.  In any good story, whether it be a novel or a movie, it is important that the characters in it grow over the course of the film.  Each character should learn something, whether it be good or bad, so that by the end of the story they are at a different place then when they started.  I think this especially holds true with Anthony and Dignan.

For me, Anthony and Dignan are almost like two halves of one character.  Anthony is smart and observant, but doesn't know what he wants in life and doesn't take others feelings into consideration.  Meanwhile, Dignan is ignorant and blunt, but at least he has his priorities set.  As a result, the two friends need each other in order to feel whole.

In the beginning of the film, Anthony is a complete deadbeat.  He recently graduated from college but has no idea what he wants to do.  The only thing he knows is that he can't go home.  I especially enjoy the conversation Anthony has with his sister earlier on in the film, which shows that although Anthony is an adult, even his little sister is more mature than he is.

Cue U2's "But I still haven't found what I'm looking for"

Meanwhile, Dignan has been waiting for Anthony to come out of a mental hospital to finally put his robbery scheme into motion.  It's obviously not the smartest plan in the world, but Anthony follows along anyway because it gives him something to do and prevents him from going home.

The brains behind the operation...

The first act of the film concludes with Anthony, Dignan, and Bob robbing the bookstore and seeking asylum in a motel out in the middle of nowhere.  It's here where Anthony meets Inez and finally finds something he wants.  But of course, life is never that easy.  Inez doesn't want to join Anthony because he doesn't have a plan for his life.

Eventually, Anthony and Dignan leave the motel and argue over how Anthony leaves Inez the rest of their money.  Through this argument, Dignan helps Anthony realize something about himself: he never really takes into consideration how his actions affect others.  

This can be seen throughout the course of the film.  Anthony never takes into account how checking into a mental hospital affected his family and friends (his little sister is ashamed and tells everyone he is a pilot, while Dignan felt especially lonely because Mr. Henry fired him and he had no one else to turn to).  Anthony never takes into consideration what Inez would have to give up (her job, family, and friends) to follow him and Dignan on a path that would lead to nowhere.  And finally, Anthony never takes into consideration how giving away the last of their money might affect Dignan.

"In the end it's easier to think about yourself than to think about Dignan."

This is where we reach the middle of the second act.  Anthony basically had two options in his life after he graduated from college: find something worth living for or going home.  Now seemingly defeated because what he wants is seemingly taken away from him (Inez) and Dignan abandons him, he decides to goes back home.  Ironically, this is the turning point for Anthony's character.  While at home, he starts to develop a routine and plan for his life.  Moreover, he finally starts to think about how he's neglected others while he's been thinking about himself.  This is evident when Anthony starts to write his sister a letter to inform him of his progress at becoming an adult.

It is even more apparent in the third act where Anthony decides to join Dignan on one last heist.  Although this time, Anthony doesn't do this heist because he has nothing better to do; instead, he realizes that he owes his best friend this because it means so much to him, even if it means getting in trouble.

"You gotta get me one of these jumpsuits."

And this is where everything comes together in the climax of the third act.  As expected, the heist is a setup and a complete disaster.  With police on the way, Anthony stands ready to take the fall for his best friend.  

This is the turning point for Dignan's character.  Dignan comes to the realization that his friend Anthony has now become complete without him.  Not only has Anthony accepted the responsibilities of being an adult, he finally has something to live for when he discovers that Inez loves him.  Dignan realizes that if Anthony takes the blame for the heist, he'll lose everything that he's worked so hard to gain.  In the end, Dignan decides to save Anthony and sacrifice himself to the police.

The film concludes with Anthony and Bob visiting Dignan in jail.  Anthony finally has everything that he wanted in life and Dignan is happy for him.  As Dignan walks back  to prison, he feigns to his friends the possibility of a jailbreak attempt and laughs it off.  The movie then closes with the infamous slow-motion walk of Dignan looking back.

"Isn't it funny how you used to be in the nuthouse and now I'm in jail?"

I absolutely love this shot because it's incredibly powerful.  Dignan, throughout the entire film, is shown to be this cheerful man who has a somewhat romantic view of the world that everything will be okay.  Even when he's down, he quickly bounces back with a kick in his step.  The reason why this particular shot and is so moving is because it reveals the humanity in Dignan.  It shows that underneath his joking and mischievous demeanor, he is incredibly sad about his situation.

If you obtain the Criterion Collection of Bottle Rocket, you can also watch Murita Cycles, a short film that inspired Wes Anderson.  The ending shot of Bottle Rocket is definitely comparable to the scene in Murita Cycles where Murray cries while talking about his wife.  Both scenes show that even the strongest and happiest of men can feel sad.

In my mind, Bottle Rocket is not about a couple of guys trying to become robbers and make it big.  Instead, it is about the change and growth in Anthony and Dignan and how their relationship changes throughout the course of the film.  I think if you try to view the film in terms of plot, you will find that the movie really has no story.  However, if you look at it in terms of characters, you will realize that this is a fantastic coming of age story.

Stay tuned for next week's screenwriting analysis on Rushmore!