All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I tried to lead one of these discussions once before. It's hard. Maybe harder than you think. Before anyone starts posting reviews of the entire script or film. Let's start with the over all impression you got from the script and then we can move on to more specifics such as story, plotline, structure, characters, format and what not.
I personally have not finished yet. I got sick with food poisoning on Thursday and is still sick, but I will get to it. I read half of it though and my first impression was great! The pages flew by.
So lets get started. What was your first impression of this script and why did you feel the way you did about it.
EDIT: MAC if you haven't read the script yet *** BEWARE OF SPOILERS ***
Of course I both read the script (twice) and reviewed the movie for a second and third time. The notes I'll provide later are excruciating.
I liked both Mark Heyman's and Darren Aronofsky's versions. - Heyman's stuck pretty darn close to the three act structure. - Aronofsy did an excellent job of both shifting character focus and story elements.
Heyman sure doesn't have much writing history, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2114730/ The guy did pretty good, even if he did throw in repetitive -ly words and a couple redundancies.
I'm about halfway through and I'm having a very hard time not having my feelings be influenced by the film.
That said, I'll just come out with it and say that I think all the changes made to the script for a final product made it better.
The sexual subtext in the script seems very downplayed compared to the film. I think that was an integral part of the film. Sexuality is inherent in the character of the Black Swan and thus is something Nina needs to explore within herself in order to capture both sides of her role. In the script, it seems like all she has to do is loosen up and dance better. No exploration necessary. Rather than say the script version of the story is shallow, which is a feeling that could only be influenced by having seen the film, I will say that the film was a lot more thoughtful with its storytelling and really built on the themes presented in the base material (Swan Lake).
I also think Nina's relationships with the characters in the script make her much less interesting (so far). In the script, she and Beth are "friends." I suppose it's a dramatic turn when their friendship is severed. Beth is a hero to Nina and for her to be shunned by her hero in the moment when she expects to have won her hero's respect has the potential to be emotionally taught.
At the same time though, I feel like because they're friends, Nina has an in to try and reconcile with Beth. She didn't really seem to try though. The script itself merely tells you their friendship is over in one of the paragraphs.
In the film, Beth's approval is a fantasy for Nina because they're not friends and because they're not friends, Nina cannot hope to try and reconcile anything once Beth turns on her. The broken fantasy seems to be a lot more crushing than a broken friendship in the context of the story. It seems like the Nina in the film would have to work a lot harder to make a friend than the Nina in the script, let alone a friend of her idol, even if their friendship is a sham. Script Nina seems a lot more functional socially. Her lack of functionality in the film and her solidarity are among the things that made Natalie Portman's character interesting.
Also... Erica? Worthless character. Does nothing for Nina except make her look somewhat domineering and as a result, I don't buy that the Black Swan would be as difficult a role to master. Who's this person supposed to be anyways? A maid? I don't like it. They were right to change the character.
At this point, I'm reluctant to finish the script. Not because it's bad but because I think I've been too influenced by the film to make an objective analysis. Still, I stand by my comments thus far.
I want to make it clear that right now I'm discussing the script as opposed to the movie at this moment.
The very first thing I noticed a truly appreciated was that we weren't introduced to the protag as
NINA PRETTY BALLERINA, 26, yada-yada-yada.
You don't know how much I get tired of reading that kind of thing although I know it's important and sometimes absolutely necessary to get the important stuff dealt with. Still, from a readers perspective, I like to be entertained and no matter how much someone wants to talk on about scripts being blueprints and yes, all of that is true, I don't want to read a blue-print. I want art and entertainment, first, blueprint, second.
We were immediately shown visually through images and not through dialogue, (for example) how long Nina had been dancing for-- with all those slippers in growing sizes that were nailed on her ceiling, a testament to all of the years of dedication.
Images. This script is loaded with images and emotion.
Also... Erica? Worthless character. Doesn't nothing for Nina except make her look somewhat domineering and as a result, I don't buy that the Black Swan would be as difficult a role to master. Who's this person supposed to be anyways? A maid? I don't like it. They were right to change the character.
Hello James, I appreciated some of your other comments, especially regarding the sexual subtext. It was much more pronounced in the film and I don't want to mention some things just yet, but you are so right.
Regarding me quoting you above though:
I believe that Erica is so very important to the movie; however, it didn't quite come through in the script. Even still, she, (Erica) I believe suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder and so did Nina, (but not so typical a one) who, being a narcissist and the daughter of one, felt compelled to please her mother no matter what.
The problematic relationship is kind of like an axis around which this story rotates. Yes, Nina's life, indeed Erica's, too, is all about The Ballet and making it. Besides that, their life is shallow, the food, meager, even sexuality is repressed. And it all has to do with the faulty relationship and besides a narcissistic type of personality disorder, Nina was slowly going deeper into a kind of madness, fueled by her obsession, fueled by her fears.
I think it's important to note that out of the 67 pages I've read so far, there's no indication that Nina is related to Erica, let alone her mother. It almost seems like someone Nina's hired to take care of her. That's why I've written her off as worthless. Maybe it's brought up later but if it is, it's far too late and if it isn't... worthless.
I think it's important to note that out of the 67 pages I've read so far, there's no indication that Nina is related to Erica, let alone her mother...Maybe it's brought up later but if it is, it's far too late and if it isn't... worthless.
Page 82. It's supposed to be some shocking reveal.
I think it's important to note that out of the 67 pages I've read so far, there's no indication that Nina is related to Erica, let alone her mother. It almost seems like someone Nina's hired to take care of her. That's why I've written her off as worthless. Maybe it's brought up later but if it is, it's far too late and if it isn't... worthless.
We can see by all actions that she appears to be her mother; however, the behavior is so odd, it's like she's not. This is indeed why Nina calls her Erica, at first, if I'm not mistaken-- to show that something is wrong in the relationship. Later, when she's in the process of her change, she flat out calls her "mom", but it isn't good.
Now ask yourself, "What would be the reason for Nina calling her by "Erica"? Might it have been Erica's request? Because perhaps being called "mother" is just too much for her? Maybe becoming a mother is what ruined things for her.
I don't for one minute believe Erica is a worthless character.
The point of including ERICA is to establish that NINA's homelife provides no refuge from her peer/professional world. NINA exercises so much personal control of self because she cannot control her environment. Also, it reinforces the single mom and daughter with absent husband/father goobledy gok. Aranofsky does a much better job displaying the pathology of the issues the self-imposed ballet culture only exacerbates.
I enjoyed the script, but it seems almost basic compared to the film, which introduced multiple layers.
Still, it was an excellent script and just goes to show how a talented director can eke out even more.
The main thing I noticed about it compared to amateur scripts: The focus on theme.
The difference in focus to theme between pros and amateurs is VERY noticeable. It's something that first struck me on that one page challenge, and continues to stand out like a sore thumb when I read a pro script in comparison to a pre pro one.
It is THE major difference between pros and pre-pros, in my honest opinion. Pros know their story, and stick to it.
This is a highly focused work and it was very easy to read.
The script is incredibly visual and has Rick has pointed out already, focused. I think the main thing that stands out for me is much focus is put on Nina right from the start and immediately we are taken on her journey of change. The script is also very reader focused with lines that many would regard as unfilmable. Some of the descriptions were just flawless. If a picture paints a thousand words then this shows that screenwriting is that process in reverse, albeit, with a twist. Using as few words as possible to paint a picture. But finding those words . . .
Okay, I'm going to finish the script today. Feeling much better. Thank you Sandra.
I'm really really bad at describing things and when I try to write what I want to say which sounds good in my head it comes out as mumbo jumbo in text. Therefore I will be short and just say that Sandra's first comment is exactly how I felt about reading the script. I haven't seen the film yet, but the script painted clear pictures in my head. I saw everything clearly. It was a very easy read, at least the first half. The pages just breezed by. Rick also had very good comments that I echo. I know we've had these discussions before and it's so true. You can tell a pro script from the very start. I'm going to enjoy the sunshine and sit outdoors and read the rest and if time allows watch the film tonight.
So, it looks like the first impression was good from most.
Jeff, yes, I thought it would start on Sunday too, but I guess Cornetto meant Sunday where he is.
This script was an excellent choice for study, I think, it's stirred up a lot of conflicting thoughts for me.
Early notes... I read the script first then watched the DVD. The script seemed to me to be an uneven mix, mostly competent, sometimes vivid and brilliantly concise, sometimes hurried or lazy. The script seemed to regard the ballet culture as alien, studying broken pieces of it dispassionately, keeping it as a colorful backdrop to a psychological drama. The character of Erica in the script seemed undeveloped, to me, intended, perhaps to be a foil for Nina, an alternate version of how ballerinas can go bad. I liked the script but based on the script alone I would not have hurried to see the film. The script did not seem to me to be in love with Nina or with ballet, just mildly interested in them both. The character of Nina seemed to be a deliberate mix of beautiful-but-unattractive, a voice in the back of my mind kept saying... for heaven sake, just grow a pair, Nina. Wings, balls, whatever.
The film seems obsessed with Nina's face, and before the black swan transformation begins, that's not a good thing. As lovely as Natalie Portman is, her main direction seems to have been "keep that insipid look" -- and to her credit she out-acts the film to the point that her expression seemed to read "hey, who do I have to f*ck and or kill to get out of this picture? myself? no problem."
However, Nina transforming to black swan, especially the smearing on make-up in the dressing room scenes, makes the film worthwhile, I think, makes me think of the movie with pleasure, forgetting what seemed like lazy story development and paper-tiger villains.
I was disappointed we didn't get to appreciate the final ballet scenes from the audience point of view, we don't really get to experience the performance the way the audience in the theatre does, too bad, I think. Anyway, once I realized that the film is just a psychological drama, it makes more sense to me; Thomas, Beth, Lilly even Nina's Mom are just ordinary flawed people, it's only Nina's craziness that makes them seem threatening. And Nina's craziness has little, perhaps nothing to do with artistry, beauty or any of the things that make life precious, I think.
One scene I loved, really loved, was Nina being coached on how to play the black swan by the ballet mistress, the muscles on the older woman's back fall into wing-like formations with no drama at all.
I totally enjoyed the script. I enjoyed the opening visuals of the ballet slippers to the disturbing (if not obvious to me) ending.
I have to comment on Erica as well. I thought she was a figment of Nina’s imagination, possibly. Then realized she wasn’t - that she was an overbearing protective mother who knew her daughter had mental health issues, but to an extent that only hurt her daughter.
Clearly Nina needed meds. And clearly
Erica was not a useless by far character, she was needed in order for us to see the backstory and who and what Nina is.
It was painful to read as I have a mentally ill sister, so it really was personal. They did a good job of showing that mental illness is not always easy to spot. Nina had them all fooled didn’t she – accept her mother.
There is so much to comment on, but for now, I will say I enjoyed the script and the movie, but the script was more interesting for me.
They left out a few really good visuals, like when she was having sex and saw herself in the mirror but the Nina in the mirror didn’t move with each thrust…(lol) she just stared back at her. That was written well and so interesting a visual.
But then the masturbation part was done super well and when she noticed her mom in the room, well that spoke volumes to how much her mother was way over bearing, trying to keep her a little girl (pink shit and all) and not giving her the privacy a 6 year old needs. Ugh, that really pissed me off too!
Anyway, more later and I love the comments so far. Happy 4th.
I saw the movie when it was first released to theatres. I read the script over the past week. I enjoyed both and think it’s a great film to do this with.
My initial thoughts on the scripts was how well done the double/doppelganger/Lilli angle was so well written. I would love to know how many drafts were done before this was nailed so tight. It could so easily have been a confusing mess. It’s written so simply that makes it clear and incredibly effective.
I think Sandra has already mentioned how well the show/don’t tell devices work so well. One of my fave’s was the scene with the card swopping of the flowers in the hospital. Nina’s insecurity -- no dialogue needed and more effective because of it. The scripts full of this stuff and what sets apart from most of the scripts I read. Another example is the electronic dolls in the subway.
When I saw the film there were a couple of scenes that I thought nearly let the rest of the movie down. The most obvious to me was the scene in the room with all the press clipping and photographs – when the eyes start moving. Watching the movie I had to stifle a giggle because they way it was shot was really lame. I thought it was funny. I may be in the minority, here. In the script it was a lot more effective.
Some of the more surreal elements were better in the script than they were in the film. The whole swan neck/monstrous element slightly let the film down for me. It’s still a very good film despite my minor quibbles. The best praise I can give the movie and the script is that it deals with mental health issues, which is very rare for a film thats gets a theatrical release.
Another initial thought I had when I read the script was how small the Beth character was in contrast to the film. Again, I may be in the minority here but I thought Winona Ryder stole the movie from Portman and Kunis. I thought she teared up the screen. She was brilliant.
I have to agree about the room full of her mom's art. It was almost like a cartoon for a second and did not hold up well to the script or even the tone of the rest of the movie. Some of them looked like OH NO MR. BILL! LOL
This will be an interesting discussion, as I can tell I'm going to be on my own little island, as usual.
I'm shocked people say this is a breezy, easy read. I feel just the opposite, It's a true slog...it's so damn slow, dull, and uneventful. hard to root for any of the characters, as they're all so ugly, and boring, except for Lily.
This script is peppered with so many mistakes, also. I can see why it clocks in at over 130 pages, as it's so overwritten, jam packed with useless asides and unfilmables, as well as an insane amount of wrylies. I'll go out on a limb and say this shouldn't be over 110 pages, and based on the actual film, that seems to make sense.
I'll power through it, but I'm so far from impressed. I'll try and be nice and play along...
I have to agree about the room full of her mom's art. It was almost like a cartoon for a second and did not hold up well to the script or even the tone of the rest of the movie. Some of them looked like OH NO MR. BILL! LOL
Good point.
I'm going to be watching the movie a second time this evening so that I can give my opinion on that scene. I remember the scene, but I don't remember thinking it was silly or out of place. Remember, we're seeing this through the distortion of Nina's POV. We know that really good writing comes from truth and a lot of times personal experience. I personally know a woman who is very paranoid. I also know that more than likely, it's due to a lupus like condition as she has extreme bent arthritic fingers. It's no laughing matter. She's alone since her companion passed away and she's very sick with only a small dog for company. That dog, is very old.
I know it's fun sometimes to joke around and make fun of serious subjects. Especially if we do about ourselves-- helps us out, but I know that since this was such a seriously toned piece... I believe the writers were truly trying to say a lot without saying a lot by capturing and keeping that emotional tone throughout. I just can't joke about this film because truly, I'd feel like I was being as if blasphemous, if that makes any sense.
Anyways, yes, will be watching this tonight and you know what?
I have washed a white ceramic swan I had painted and glazed several years ago, shined her up and placed her on the shelf in my magic room-- my tribute to the movie.
This script is peppered with so many mistakes, also. I can see why it clocks in at over 130 pages, as it's so overwritten, jam packed with useless asides and unfilmables, as well as an insane amount of wrylies. I'll go out on a limb and say this shouldn't be over 110 pages, and based on the actual film, that seems to make sense.
I'll power through it, but I'm so far from impressed. I'll try and be nice and play along...
I won't pretend that I didn't see some glaring errors or unfilmables, but as has been mentioned, the story (you may not think so I know) is good and I loved watching what the director and actors did with the whole thing.
The script I think is always just the beginning of a wonderful creative process and we can see this happening here.
Sandra, I in no way was implying that this was not a good or poigniant scene. Oh the contrary. I am just thinking that the actual filming of it... well, sucked.
It was cartoonie and imho could have been done more better, darker more surreal and scary. Now the end when she became a the black swan was lovely, why didn't they use that technique?
I think the scene is more than valid, just not done well at all.
Yes, I agree with dmc. My points on that scene were about the actual filming of it. On the page it was fine. The application of it in-camera was the problem for me.
Sandra, I in no way was implying that this was not a good or poigniant scene. Oh the contrary. I am just thinking that the actual filming of it... well, sucked.
It was cartoonie and imho could have been done more better, darker more surreal and scary. Now the end when she became a the black swan was lovely, why didn't they use that technique?
I think the scene is more than valid, just not done well at all.
This is good to hear this from you because I will learn to see what you are referring to here. I'm about to sit down and watch it now. I will stay posted. I know I will learn a lot from the comments as we move along.
Hey guys and gals. Sorry for not being on the ball on this but something important came about today that I could not skip. In other words, I still haven't finished the script myself, but I'm delighted to see so many people taking part. With first impression put down, are we ready to move on to structure and plot?
I will catch up tomorrow I swear!!!!!
Jeff, do you think Rear Window is a small movie? Just curious.
Hey guys and gals. Sorry for not being on the ball on this but something important came about today that I could not skip. In other words, I still haven't finished the script myself, but I'm delighted to see so many people taking part. With first impression put down, are we ready to move on to structure and plot?
I will catch up tomorrow I swear!!!!!
Jeff, do you think Rear Window is a small movie? Just curious.
Perhaps we can wait? In the past, these things have moved so quickly and Jeff wants to wait for a bit I think and it will give some others an opportunity to jump in.
Don't wait on me, but it seems like we only have a handful of peeps who have jumped in and several haven't read the scrip or seen the movie.
Pia, I can't rally comment on Rear Window, as I'm not even sure if I've seen the entire thing, and if I did, it was many, many years ago.
When I say "small" I mean several things...first of all, there's really nothing at stake here, the most is Nina's sanity, and I guess as it turns out, her life, but that's it. Also, it's confined to so few settings and characters (that matter) even. There's very little of relevance that goes down.
That's fine with me Sandra. Gives me a chance to catch up tomorrow.
I think I just like to be a connoisseur. I hope no one minds.
Just about ten minutes ago, I finished watching this the second time. I was able to see things in it I didn't the first go around. I loved the direction and really appreciated all of the angles.
As far as Erica's room and the plastered wall of pictures goes, my problem with it was it just didn't last long enough. My eyes aren't like a vacuum cleaner and I couldn't suck it in fast enough. I would have liked to linger in that room for awhile.
Just about ten minutes ago, I finished watching this the second time. I was able to see things in it I didn't the first go around. I loved the direction and really appreciated all of the angles.
As far as Erica's room and the plastered wall of pictures goes, my problem with it was it just didn't last long enough. My eyes aren't like a vacuum cleaner and I couldn't suck it in fast enough. I would have liked to linger in that room for awhile.
I also benefited from having watched the movie a couple extra times, especially after I had read Heyman's screenplay.
And then after having watched the film I reread the screenplay and found it appropriate to adjust some biases I had assigned to some story elements as I took notes due to recollections of my first viewing of the film months ago.
I'll confess to some distinct impression and interpretational reversals due to biases, and I feel a more robust critique comes from including the additional process, time and effort consuming PITA that it is.
I'll confess to some distinct impression and interpretational reversals due to biases, and I feel a more robust critique comes from including the additional process, time and effort consuming PITA that it is.
I agree. I am no where near your level of critique ability, Ray, but I sure will understand anyone who (like Jeff) might not appreciate this film.
In my opinion, this is a film you either feel or you don't feel. I imagine it's like some people who can go to an art exhibit and really feel the person behind the work, whereas others might stand there and wonder what on earth one sees in the picture/sculpture or whatever it might be.
There are many comments early in this thread that absorb the belief that the film exceeds artistically whereas the script, though well told, is plain by comparison. I would have to agree with this, and maybe writers need to sometimes take themselves a little less seriously and realize that they're just another small link in the artistic chain... unless of course, they're taking on the whole of the project themselves and then they are like gods.
There were a couple of excellent choices (more than that) that were made in the movie. When we followed Nina from behind, this was so different than the usual front portrayal, right away, it's a subconscious thing, but we feel the difference, as if something's askew. As a matter of fact, a lot of shots were like this, deliberately off the norm. Don't ask me how. I don't have a clue, but I can sense it. You tell me.
Particularly, in the beginning, when Nina is speaking about her dream, we need to do a double take. Who's she talking to? As if to herself, but maybe Erica is there at that moment. I'm still not sure.
I think anyone who thinks the film is small has missed out on what it's actually about and is only picking up on the literal level.
It's an allegory that works on many levels. You can read it as someone who has a Dissociative identity disorder, which seems to be the most common level.
However it's really about the nature of fame and the sacrifice on a spiritual level needed to become a world famous star. It's a damning expose of the entertainment Industry.
The essential story is as old as time. You see it in the Bible, in Buddhism, Black Magic, Western Hermeticism, Thelema...etc.
It's the idea that someone who can completely embody both good and evil, the Yin and the Yang etc has the ability to transcend existence.
This results in immortality...Jesus (who has the keys to hell, and is also the son of God), Buddha, the Taoist immortals etc. But the price is always physical death.
A recent film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus recently went into great depth about this, and is an overtly occult film. However the idea can even be seen in Star Wars.
When Darth Vader, the ultimate expression of evil, saves his son, he transcends. He becomes immortal, but his body dies.
In Black Swan the transcendence is hollow. Her actions will make her legend, but there's no spiritual transcendence.
It's a bleak look at the Entertainment Industry and the way they take innocent young girls (eg Britney Spears) turn them into raving sex vixens to make them famous, then spit them out when they're done.
The corruption of Nina by Thomas is an allegory for the way the Music Industry handles its young entertainers.
Aronofsky also weaves in conspiracy theory about Monarch Programming.
A lot of the imagery used, (White Rabbits, Pink, Cracked mirrors, drugs etc) is based on what the CIA supposedly did to people to deliberately create multiple personalities in order to control their minds.
The conspiracy theory is that the Entertainment Industry uses these techniques to create its stars. Aronofsky takes these ideas and weaves them into the whole fabric of the film.
So, yeah, it's far, far from being a small film. It's incrediby deep and goes to places most filmmakers aren't even aware of, let alone have the talent to discuss.
As I recall in the beginning of the film, we hear someone almost noiselessly open Nina's door, the light falls across Nina's smiling face -- a few moments later when Nina is stretching, a woman's (Erica's) dark form hurries by in the mirror. I was impressed that the first words that Nina speaks in the film are about her dream, in the script she says a very meek "thank you" to Erica for the 4 sugar lumps. I thought the script was going to go for some sort of hummingbird (lives on sugar water, moves so fast you can hardly see it, actually flies backward so it seems to see itself coming and going ((as it were))) but did not, unless I missed it. The 4 sugar lumps was an odd moment though, yes? Note: not a reference to CIA and LSD. Not consciously, anyway. But an odd moment, for sure.
Why was the 4 lumps odd? Nina is on a diet and has to watch what she eats, Erica isn't. It's shown and stated several time about Nina's 'weight', the fat woman at the underground, the fat nurse, the costumers comments about her hips, the black dress barely fitting her etc, the contstant demand for perfection. What's odd if anything is that Erica's behaviour to do that so overtly is almost abusive to Nina. Erica is aware of Nina mental state, or so it would seem.
I took the four lumps thing just as a way of showing how "young" she is mentally. Kids always want really sweet things. The fact she has to get permission also shows how stunted her development as an individual has been.
A "normal" amount of sugar wouldn't have made that point.
Erica is trying to retard her progress into adulthood. She wants to keep her as a little girl under her control...she even dresses her which subtly hints at a breach in the incest taboo...something they really brought out in the film to an uncomfortable level....We later see she is even a block to Nina masturbating and discovering her own sexuality.
She is being mentally abused (perhaps physically at some earlier point) by her mother who seems to be trying to live out her life vicariously through Nina.
This is the development theory of Multiple Personality Disorder:
Development theory
It has been theorized that severe sexual, physical, or psychological trauma in childhood predisposes an individual to the development of DID. The steps in the development of a dissociative identity are theorized to be as follows:
1.The child is harmed by a trusted caregiver (often a parent or guardian) and splits off the awareness and memory of the traumatic event to survive in the relationship. 2.The memories and feelings go into the subconscious and are experienced later in the form of a separate personality. 3.The process happens repeatedly at different times so that different personalities develop, containing different memories and performing different functions that are helpful or destructive. 4.Dissociation becomes a coping mechanism for the individual when faced with further stressful situations.[41]
ok, Nina is young mentally, so that would seem to give Erica extra responsibility to keep Nina on track. Also, since Erica is serving the meal, she (Erica) has some responsibility for what Nina consumes.
Nina's imploring glance, wanting more sugar (affection? attention? how much is enough?), causes the begrudging response from Erica... maybe they do this routine everyday... I think it was the right decision to leave this out of the film, it makes Nina seem needy in a controlling sort of way. Just my humble opinion, of course.
I think anyone who thinks the film is small has missed out on what it's actually about and is only picking up on the literal level.
It's an allegory that works on many levels. You can read it as someone who has a Dissociative identity disorder, which seems to be the most common level.
However it's really about the nature of fame and the sacrifice on a spiritual level needed to become a world famous star. It's a damning expose of the entertainment Industry.
The essential story is as old as time. You see it in the Bible, in Buddhism, Black Magic, Western Hermeticism, Thelema...etc.
It's the idea that someone who can completely embody both good and evil, the Yin and the Yang etc has the ability to transcend existence.
This results in immortality...Jesus (who has the keys to hell, and is also the son of God), Buddha, the Taoist immortals etc. But the price is always physical death.
A recent film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus recently went into great depth about this, and is an overtly occult film. However the idea can even be seen in Star Wars.
When Darth Vader, the ultimate expression of evil, saves his son, he transcends. He becomes immortal, but his body dies.
In Black Swan the transcendence is hollow. Her actions will make her legend, but there's no spiritual transcendence.
It's a bleak look at the Entertainment Industry and the way they take innocent young girls (eg Britney Spears) turn them into raving sex vixens to make them famous, then spit them out when they're done.
The corruption of Nina by Thomas is an allegory for the way the Music Industry handles its young entertainers.
Aronofsky also weaves in conspiracy theory about Monarch Programming.
A lot of the imagery used, (White Rabbits, Pink, Cracked mirrors, drugs etc) is based on what the CIA supposedly did to people to deliberately create multiple personalities in order to control their minds.
The conspiracy theory is that the Entertainment Industry uses these techniques to create its stars. Aronofsky takes these ideas and weaves them into the whole fabric of the film.
So, yeah, it's far, far from being a small film. It's incrediby deep and goes to places most filmmakers aren't even aware of, let alone have the talent to discuss.
Rick, you have put this so wonderfully well. What is interesting, is that we feel that industry of the exterior, but we never see it. We never really see a lot except for the bit with the autograph. It's very capsulized in that sense where it creates a kind of hollow whereby we witness the subject from the interior lives of the mother/daughter and feel their view as narrow and shallow and yes great, because of all of the sacrifice, but ultimately it amounts to nothing and somehow we have to know perfection in that truth as it lands, on soft padding, to die, to live the part, to the end.
It stands out to me, the first time we glimpse Erica, her smile is so very warm, then later, in subtle tugs, we see her other side and always, get the feeling that she means well, but is misguided in her treatment of Nina. In fact we have no idea what kind of upbringing she had. We can only guess, that since she too, lived the ballerina life, likewise, she might have been the victim of a domineering mother and is perpetuating the cycle.
I understand that "the smallness" to which Jeff refers is only in regards to locations and the action of "what is happening" relating to plot. I think that is what you're saying, right Jeff? Indeed, it isn't a big movie from that perspective. It's a very intricate movie. It didn't take us out onto the streets of the world really. Most we got was the subway and its tunnels. Was there one scene where we could glimpse a mountain top? The sun setting? A tree? No. All we got was a dark apartment. A subway. A theatre. A bar. A hospital. Small. Yes. Makes one think.
As long as we are discussing food I was wondering why they both had to say PRETTY at the same time about the pink grapefruit. That really struck me as odd. How do that move the story forward? Did it try to form some kind of common ground?
I that "SMALL" FILM meant that it was filmed in only a few locations. This was a deep film, to say the least.
It always amazes me how different people are. How they look at the same thing and see something so completely different. I don't think that's a bad thing, either.
But, I think everyone needs to try and understand that everything is different, depending on how you see it...hear it, or experience it.
Sandra made a very good point, and although it's so obvious, it always make sense to point it out.
Art - all in the eye of the beholder. Shocking how 180 degrees differently, the same exact thing can be viewed. Back when I was doing well financially, I liked buying art...fairly expensive art. Some of my friends like it...some love it, like I do, yet others think I'm absolutely nuts, as they not only don't like it, but they wonder why in the world I'd spend that kind of money on a piece of art in the first place, and then, why of all things the ones I chose?
Art's a personal thing. I personally get alot of pleasure looking at my pieces. They move me...make me happy...take me back to happy times.
I said I see this as a very small script and film, and Rick sees it as exactly the opposite. Rick laid out a very well thought out post on what he sees here and why it's not a small film in any way.
I totally understand where he's coming from and agree it's a well written post...but it doesn't change my feelings at all. To me, it's once again reading into to something and drawing correlations to literally everything in the script with "big" outside world things and issues.
My mind doesn't work that way, and I find it downright humorous (nothing against Rick at all, BTW!).
We all see things differently and that's a good thing. I'm going to bring up things in the script that I know no one saw. Some will say these things don't matter. Some will call me nuts. But a few will be intrigued and see what I'm saying and what I'm getting at, and maybe...even agree.
The Pink thing is a nod towards Erica's control over Nina. She keeps her dressed and has her room made out like a little girls. She even sleeps in her room.
It essentially shows the influence of Erica over Nina. That Nina has come to mirror the personality Erica expects of her.
I noticed the Pink thing early on, the jewelry case with the ballarina. In the movie they have her toss all her stuffed animals down the garbage shoot as a way to show her trying to distance herself from her mother, (kind of a normal act) but that part was not in the script, I don't think.
There were so many differences from the script. Good and Bad. But the TONE remained the same. I think.
Someone mentioned earlier that they Natalie Portman probably got too much face time and that Wynona stole the show. I am not sure I agree. Wynonas character seemed odd to me, Crazy herself. Maybe it supposed to show that all artists are egocentric and crazy. But that Nina was unlucky in that she inherited a personality disorder from her mom too.
As long as we are discussing food I was wondering why they both had to say PRETTY at the same time about the pink grapefruit. That really struck me as odd. How do that move the story forward? Did it try to form some kind of common ground?
The "So pretty!!!!" thing is in the film, not in screenplay. It establishes that although mother and daughter can be pleasant and civil to each other it's only when reciting some sort of canned catch phrases they like to banter back and forth. Beyond that Mom's constantly berating her daughter about what NINA can and can't do or what she should settle for or forgone absence-of-faith predictions both to her and others (over the phone).
ERICA/MOM's roles are wildly different from script-to-screen.
Maybe 10% in screenplay. Probably at least >40% of story in the film.
We all see things differently...I've never met someone before who doesn't think there are such things as themes though!
It's totally crazy to me, and goes against the entire development of Art and critical theory.
The film doesn't exactly try and hide what it's about:
Thomas "Perfection is not just about control. It is also about letting go. Surprise yourself so you can surprise the audience. Transcendence. Very few have it in them.ďż˝
Later:
�I knew the White Swan wouldn�t be a problem. The real work would be your metamorphosis into her evil twin.�
Note that he doesn't use the words portrayal or mention her ability to play the part...but talks about her actually metamorphisizing into the evil twin.
There are whole swathes of things that you seem to miss out on...the very core of what the work is about. You really need to study literary techniques such as the ones below to enlighten yourself.
By comparing what Aronofsky did with the film to what the writer did with the script, you can see a demonstration of it. He chose to have a lesbian sex scene, rather than the scene with Thomas. He removed Beth as being a friend. Greatly enhanced the Mother's role...all to build up the theme that he was interested in bringing out.
If you think he doesn't have an interest in the Occult...watch the Fountain.
Here's what Jackman and Aronofsky said about it:
"The Fountain's theme of fear of death is "a movement from darkness into light, from black to white"[4] that traces the journey of a man scared of death and moving toward it. The film begins with a paraphrase of Genesis 3:24, the Biblical passage that reflects the The Fall of Man. Hugh Jackman emphasized the importance of the Fall in the film: "The moment Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, humans started to experience life as we all experience it now, which is life and death, poor and wealthy, pain and pleasure, good and evil. We live in a world of duality. Husband, wife, we relate everything. And much of our lives are spent not wanting to die, be poor, experience pain. It's what the movie's about."[5] Aronofsky also interpreted the story of Genesis as the definition of mortality for humanity. He inquired of the Fall, "If they had drank from the Tree of Life [instead of the Tree of Knowledge] what would have separated them from their maker? So what makes us human is actually death. It's what makes us special."[6]
Deep stuff that they work hard to get in there.
Read the whole page on the Fountain and witness the lengths he goes to to explore his themes.
The transmutation of base metal into gold, and the creation of the Philospopher's Stone to achieve immortality.
It originally had four stages:[1]
nigredo (-putrefactio), blackening(-putrefaction): corruption, dissolution, individuation, see also Suns in alchemy - Sol Niger
albedo, whitening: purification, burnout of impurity; the moon, female
citrinitas, yellowing: spiritualisation, enlightenment; the sun, male;
rubedo, reddening: unification of man with god, unification of the limited with the unlimited.
So...Black to White, To Yellow, To Red.
"However, it is in citrinitas that the Chemical Wedding takes place, generating the Philosophical Mercury without which the Philosopher's Stone, triumph of the Work, could never be accomplished."
The yellow comes from the union of male and female and without it, the Great Work can't be completed.
In the film she is corrupted to Black, then becomes the White again...then becomes Red when she's bleeding.
But she never reaches Enlightenment...so her perfection is hollow and mortal. The nature of fame.
Another thing that bothered me was Nina stealing from Beth. Nina tells Beth that she took the things with the hope that it would make her (Nina) more like Beth; perfect. Beth likely noticed her possessions were missing from her dressing room and likely regarded that as a personal violation, which it was. Evidently Nina did not intend to torture Beth by continually taking things from her -- she (Nina) seemed surprised that Beth (when she realized that Nina was the thief) became enraged and violent. I took all that to indicate that Nina is self-centered to the point of mania, but not intentionally mean.
Regarding them both exclaiming, "Pretty!" at seeing the grapefruit...
This is a very common thing to do. Not only in mother/daughter relationships, but in friendships, period. Now I'm not referring to "the word" itself, I'm referring to the notion of something behind the word.
For example, just the right look at the right time with my husband, and if he's buying the Dewalt drill, "More power!" that's the catch phrase, but it's more than that. We're both thinking the same thing at the same time and it's like a tickle inside with that common ground.
Rick, c'mon...I've never said there is no such thing as theme.
I've actually said that there is theme in everything and someone will always tell us what the theme is and why it's important.
Theme is obviously very universal, and resides in literally everything. To me, it's rather second nature and doesn't matter to me. I don't look for it. I don't care about it. I don't need some deep meaning and theme to appreciate something.
I realize there are those that feel very differently and you're obviously one of those.
I'll use one of my crazy analogies to try and make my point (but I know it most likely won't go over well).
Take the NFL, for example. Lots of fans...both casual and die hard. Some understand the game better than others. It doesn't really matter though, as long as there's enjoyment and interest. There are others who are not fans, and many are women (not to be discriminating or pigeonhole women into this category).
So, a guy's got his buddies over and they're enjoying a game, and the wifey walks in and makes some comments about not understanding why they want to waste their time watching a bunch of huge guys smashing each other, running up and down the field, etc.
So, the group gets her to sit down and watch for a few minutes. The first play is a 90 yard bomb for a touchdown. The men go crazy, while wifey puts her hands in the air and says, no one even covered him! Why are these guys making so much money...that's ridiculous!
After the ensuing kickoff, the first play from scrimmage is a short screen pass over the middle that goes for another TD. The men go crazy again, and wifey once again throws her hands in the air and says the same thing as before, gets up, and walks away.
She doesn't have a clue why these 2 plays resulted in a TD, because she doesn't know the game and its intricacies. She's not alone, either, as after each of those plays, they're shown again in slow motion with the TV analyst showing what actually took place and why the player was so open. These "things" take place on every play...sometimes they work, sometimes, they don't.
Anyone who knows the game, understands that, but many don't really care...they like the excitement...they like rooting for their home team or their favorite players...they like to bet on games...they like the camaraderie.
Bottom line is that it's entertainment, and entertainment is entertaining for various reasons to various people...and not entertaining to others, based on exactly what it is and what it contains.
Explaining the nuances of how plays work to someone who doesn't care about that, doesn't make it higher art, so top speak. It either works for what it is, or it doesn't, and that's a personal choice.
I understand thematic elements in film just like I understand the nuances of the game of football. But what I like about film and sports, is the entertainment they provide. That's all I need. If someone doesn't understand either, I can explain, but it's not something I'll do for the Hell of it, because to me, it's second nature...it's understood.
Another thing that bothered me was Nina stealing from Beth. Nina tells Beth that she took the things with the hope that it would make her (Nina) more like Beth; perfect. Beth likely noticed her possessions were missing from her dressing room and likely regarded that as a personal violation, which it was. Evidently Nina did not intend to torture Beth by continually taking things from her -- she (Nina) seemed surprised that Beth (when she realized that Nina was the thief) became enraged and violent. I took all that to indicate that Nina is self-centered to the point of mania, but not intentionally mean.
NINA's quite discreet behavior of taking only her idol's, BETH, small things could be carried a step further. In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN the child Oskar acquires a small knife to stab a tree in the courtyard as he emulates and quotes the same words of the bully who systematically assaults him. Why? Why become that which you love/hate? It helps us understand "where" the other person is coming from.
As much as we'd like to think humans are oh, so much more elevated above animals, we really aren't that much farther along.
Throughout history and across cultures humans have consumed their enemies and worn their furs and talisman's of power to attain their magical strengths. Same BS goes on today with the black market trade in everything from rhino horn to tiger and bear balls. And if that seems too silly consider what the economic value is of branded clothes with little alligators, swooshes across t-shits, fan-pop clothes and caps and accessories. Still there.
NINA has acquired BETH's talismans of power to understand, to emulate, to transcend something NINA is developmentally incapable of. She must fine a different route. She can't just play the [expletive] brief role. Oh, no. She has to BECOME! the role.
Uh, yeah... she gets the role down pat, but at a rather steep personal cost.
Guilt is a heavy theme across all humanity. Not just in fiction, but in real life.
It's fine that you just watch films for entertainment. That's your choice.
I would strongly disagree that it's just "entertainment".
You don't accept that some things are higher art than others, but it's obvious to me that they are.
Ingmar Bergman's look at existentialism in the Seventh Seal is a completely different form of entertainment to the Hangover.
They are both films, but the similarities end there.
Some writers and filmmakers spend an awful lot of time researching things they put into their scripts...even so far as to assigning colours meaning.
The truly great filmmakers create things that can be watched multiple times and you still make new discoveries.
I love to watch films where you can go and sit for three hours afterwards and discuss what it all meant. I also enjoy films that are simple and essentially pointless.
But they are very different things.
For what it's worth Black Swan was an incredibly tense and interesting film from start to finish, with brilliant cinematography and choreography and it was very entertaining on a base level, but it was also very deep and profound and that makes it all the better.
But, Rick, that's according to you and your personal preferences.
Some film makers spend an awful lot of time researching and getting the minute details down in terms of action, plotting, and details that make the experience come off as "real", which work on a different plain than the thematic issues you crave.
Using colors as elements is great, but it comes down to how each perceives their use for them to work or not. Black and white can be used in different ways to mean different things...they don't always have to mean the same thing, sometimes, the exact opposite. Good guys don't always wear white...
Things work on a technical, creative, and thematic level and just because someone points out the technical aspects, and another looks to the thematic, shouldn't discount either one.
You and many others don't seem to care about technical execution in scripts or movies. I do. I don't care about the thematic elements, but you do. Neither is wrong, it's just personal preference.
I am working on a story right now and it has story. if there is a story, there is a theme. There has to be. Isn't the theme the point of the story. It should be about something meaningful.
My interpretaton of Black Swan is yes, the good and bad, but not as much as Perfection comes with a price. Does perfection exist really, and if you are trying to acheive it, you are crazy or will die trying or both.
You and many others don't seem to care about technical execution in scripts or movies. I do. I don't care about the thematic elements, but you do. Neither is wrong, it's just personal preference.
Your perfection would make you a wonderful white swan, Jeff. But my concern is that you'd make a terrible black swan. And in your perfection lays your self destruction. LOL!
You may appreciate them all but for you, it comes down theme, and what you perceive to be "deep messages and meaning". You can't tell me this isn't true.
I have no problem admitting that theme is unimportant to me. I've heard you say countless times that the technical aspects of a script do not come into play and/or can easily be overcome.
I gotta head out to a party, so I'll be out for awhile. Everyone has their own opinion and to me, the world is a much richer place because of it.
Otherwise all you'd need is a log-line expressing the theme and nothing else.
I enjoy deep and meaningful films, just as I enjoy films like Friday the 13th remake. But they are very different animals. The same way a MacDonalds is different to high cuisine.
The difference is that with more high brow films the audience needs to be equipped with somewhat more knowledge to understand them.
Technical aspects of a script are largely irrelevant because they simply disappear when you turn the camera on.
No-one ever came out of a cinema and said the slugs were slightly off, or I wasn't sure about the use of that adverb on 13 minutes.
I notice in the film the (borders on exposition) Swan Lake discussion. Minute 8-10
Yes, it was exposition. I noticed that and appreciated it actually. The way the camera moved and all, through the ballerina's, I thought it worked perfectly. And I can imagine a teacher, not only doing it for the benefit of his girls, but for the benefit of himself, bringing himself into the passion.
I will need to spend some time going over these notes. They are fabulously tedious!
Just finished and my first impression is GREAT!!! Had I not got sick last Thursday and then there being a Holiday I would have finished this in one sitting. I hope I read the right version. I had multiple copies on my computer. One had 140 or so pages and the one I finished today was only 107.
Anyway, I think what made the script so good is that the stakes are upped constantly and every lines means something or leads to something. It makes the reader want to continue on and see what will happen next.
I'll try to read all the comments here later tonight, but it won't be until after 10pm.
Page 79 and I'm going to stop reading. I can't help but compare the script to the film and in that regard, I'm constantly finding the script lacking. I have no idea how I would've perceived it reading it on spec so I feel like I can't contribute an adequate analysis.
In any case, I'm well aware that the subplot with Nina and her mother bears no fruit in the script. Maybe there's some significance in calling her mother "Erica" but that's nothing compared to what Erica is in the film. The character in the film is domineering and over-protectice yet in as passive-aggressive a manner as possible. In the script, she's filler. She's barely there thus far and any further would be too late to try and build on her character IMO. Any twist revealing her as Nina's mother would fall flat at this point, even if I'd known nothing about the film thus far.
I've gained some insight into how much a script can change in development for production but I really don't feel like I've learned anything I could apply to my own writing at this point. Aronofsky is a talented director. I'm not sure another director (or any writers for that matter) could do what was done with this particular draft.
I'll concede in the sense that if I hadn't seen the film first, I might have had a different opinion but this really isn't doing anything for me. However biased a call I'm making right now... I'm out.
OK, a few things I'll throw out about the technical aspects of the script, as well as the characters.
It's 129 pages, which is WAY too long. The movie ran 108 minutes with credits, so the script itself should be somewhere around 95-110 pages, max.
Why is the script so long?
I counted 113 "regular" orphans, meaning, there's probably close to 120...almost 1 per page. That's over 2 pages of wasted space.
I also counted 85 dialogue orphans, which I really don't personally consider to be a problem, but when you've got a script that's overwritten like this, we might as well take them into consideration. This is close to another 2 pages of waste.
I didn't count how many extra lines there are based on 2 words spilling over onto the next line, but I know there's alot and I also know based on the way this is written, there's at least another 2 pages of waste there.
I also counted a whopping 73 wrylies! That's a shitload...way too many, and close to another 2 pages of waste.
I didn't take detailed notes of unfilmables and asides, but there's a crapload, again, and at least 5 pages of waste, based on this.
So there, we have a good part of the reason why it's clocking in at 129 pages instead of where it should be around 100.
But let's look a little closer at some aspects of the script, based on what kind of script it is.
There are very few locations here and none of them require much setup or description, so based on that, you'd think this may actually run shorter than average (1 page per minute of film).
There are also very few characters, and their descriptions are shockingly sparse, not even giving an age for anyone, which, IMO, is a big issue.
It's not really a talky script, and I'd say that the dialogue is less than most scripts. Heavy dialogue scripts (especially when you have multiple characters conversing) tends to add page length, but actually reduce film time. Again, not the case here.
It's definitely not a heavy action script, and IMO, is extremely action-lite. More action can both increase page length (based on how detailed the writer is or needs to be) and film time. Again, not the case here.
As I've said, the film is much better than the script, IMO. The character of Nina's Mom, Erica, is handled very oddly, and downright poorly, IMO, in the script. As many have said, she's a non factor, really and doesn't even need to be in the script. Now, in the film, her character is both well done, and well acted. She plays an integral part in the film, and this draft of the script really missed out on that.
I think the same can be said of Lily, to a lesser degree, though. As I said in my comments on the movie, IMO, Mila Kunis stole every scene she was in. In the script, although she was still my favorite character, she really didn't do much or have much page time, and as we neared the end, her name was completely omitted, in favor of "Double", making me question the intent of the writer to be possibly saying she was never even a real person to start with. Quite strange, actually, and handled so much better in the film.
And, I'm going to say again, that I find this script, film, and concept to be very small. It's tough to connect with Nina as a character because she's so dull and has such a pathetic life. If she was a different kind of character, I think I'd see this differently and be invested in her outcome and even her journey more.
I prefer big, dynamic characters, full of personality and emotion. I prefer those that do, as opposed to those who don't. And by "do" and "don't", I mean take life by the balls, live big, express themselves to others. Those who don't, sit around, and let life pass them by.
Other than Lily, the entire cast was extremely dull and flatline...in everything they did, and everything they said. One could argue that Thomas/Yevna had personality and lived the way he wanted to...even communicated exactly how he chose to, but we don't really see much of him. We don't get in his head at all. In many ways, he's incredibly stereotypical and cliche. There's nothing he did or said that I found surprising or interesting, and being the 2nd most dynamic character, that's pretty sad.
OK, those are my initial thoughts and some things to chew on. Let the beat down commence!
Actually Cornetto picked that one, but his original post is now deleted. I downloaded that version too and I thought that was the 107 page one. Ugh...now I'm all confused.
I just clicked on it, and it's definitely the draft I'm talking about at 129 pages. Apparently, you have multiple versions somehow and you chose a different one.
In any case, I'm well aware that the subplot with Nina and her mother bears no fruit in the script. Maybe there's some significance in calling her mother "Erica" but that's nothing compared to what Erica is in the film. The character in the film is domineering and over-protectice yet in as passive-aggressive a manner as possible. In the script, she's filler. She's barely there thus far and any further would be too late to try and build on her character IMO. Any twist revealing her as Nina's mother would fall flat at this point, even if I'd known nothing about the film thus far.
I agree that the Erica in the script hardly shows in comparison to the film.
Post # 1, on this thread, from you, Pia, is a 129 page Black Swan script, that you told us to read. It's dated 3/25/09 on the title page.
I thought we were all reading the same script draft?
Yeah we were supposed to. the 107 page version I have is dated 10/05/2009...
I don't know what's going on as far as that goes, but we can still discuss the script. Right now I'm interested in if Blake Snyder's formula can be found in BS as well.
Ray! I love your spreadsheet, but let's discuss it here then. What are the Save The Cat beats in BS?
Screenplay or Film?
ACT ONE OPENING IMAGE: SCREENPLAY - Pg 1, We know we're dealing with a ballerina in crisis FILM - Min 1, We know we're dealing with a ballerina in crisis
CATALYST: Pg 8, Swan Lake will be cast with someone new for both the white & black swan roles. Mins 8 - 10, Swan Lake will be cast with someone new for both the white & black swan roles.
THEME STATED: Pgs 16-18, NINA's a nutter. How to deal with an either/or personality? Mins 15 - 16 NINA's a nutter. How to deal with an either/or personality?
ACT TWO: Pg 26, NINA, the protagonist, got the role! Can she maintain it? Mins 22 - 24, NINA, the protagonist, got the role! Can she maintain it?
FISH OUTTA WATER: Pg 27, Intro to the principal's dressing room, demonstrate she can perform Black Swan, confront BETH, role pressure. Min 27 Intro to the principal's dressing room, demonstrate she can perform Black Swan, role pressure.
TICKING CLOCK Pgs 50 - 53, Intro to sponsors Mins 45 - 49 THOMAS's concern evolves into routine beration.
BAD GUYS CLOSE IN Pg 54 LILY teases what YEVNA wants from NINA then betrays her. Mins 49 - 52 LILY infers NINA's pressure is cause for her to goto THOMAS with concerns.
FALSE DEFEAT/GAIN Pg 65, BETH is gone. YEVNA is pissed. LILY has betrayed her. Min 55, BETH is gone. YEVNA is pissed. LILY has betrayed her
Pgs 69 - 71, LILY finally gains NINA's trust, largely due to NINA. Min 57, LILY finally gains NINA's trust, largely due to ERICA.
THE DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL: Pgs 71 - 80, The ingenue and the vamp bond over burgers, culminating in a vicious RASH! Mins 58 - 1:09, The ingenue and the vamp bond over burgers, culminating in a lezzy wet dream with RASH!
ACT 3: Pgs 84 - 129, Despite fouling the White Swan, NINA pulls off the BlackSwan, after killing her DOUBLE, which was really herself. Mins 1:10 - 1:40, NINA aces both the White and Black Swan, after killing LILY/DOUBLE, which was really herself.
ACT ONE OPENING IMAGE: SCREENPLAY - Pg 1, We know we're dealing with a ballerina in crisis FILM - Min 1, We know we're dealing with a ballerina in crisis
CATALYST: Pg 8, Swan Lake will be cast with someone new for both the white & black swan roles. Mins 8 - 10, Swan Lake will be cast with someone new for both the white & black swan roles.
THEME STATED: Pgs 16-18, NINA's a nutter. How to deal with an either/or personality? Mins 15 - 16 NINA's a nutter. How to deal with an either/or personality?
ACT TWO: Pg 26, NINA, the protagonist, got the role! Can she maintain it? Mins 22 - 24, NINA, the protagonist, got the role! Can she maintain it?
FISH OUTTA WATER: Pg 27, Intro to the principal's dressing room, demonstrate she can perform Black Swan, confront BETH, role pressure. Min 27 Intro to the principal's dressing room, demonstrate she can perform Black Swan, role pressure.
TICKING CLOCK Pgs 50 - 53, Intro to sponsors Mins 45 - 49 THOMAS's concern evolves into routine beration.
BAD GUYS CLOSE IN Pg 54 LILY teases what YEVNA wants from NINA then betrays her. Mins 49 - 52 LILY infers NINA's pressure is cause for her to goto THOMAS with concerns.
FALSE DEFEAT/GAIN Pg 65, BETH is gone. YEVNA is pissed. LILY has betrayed her. Min 55, BETH is gone. YEVNA is pissed. LILY has betrayed her
Pgs 69 - 71, LILY finally gains NINA's trust, largely due to NINA. Min 57, LILY finally gains NINA's trust, largely due to ERICA.
THE DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL: Pgs 71 - 80, The ingenue and the vamp bond over burgers, culminating in a vicious RASH! Mins 58 - 1:09, The ingenue and the vamp bond over burgers, culminating in a lezzy wet dream with RASH!
ACT 3: Pgs 84 - 129, Despite fouling the White Swan, NINA pulls off the BlackSwan, after killing her DOUBLE, which was really herself. Mins 1:10 - 1:40, NINA aces both the White and Black Swan, after killing LILY/DOUBLE, which was really herself.
That was so smack on, Ray. I think we can all end this Script club now and leap down onto a big stack of virtual pads and shout:
IT WAS PERFECT!!!
But no, we won't do that just yet, will we. No. Why not? Because we're Simplyscripters and we're insane, that's why!!!
Now someone tell me:
Do you think the movie would have been better carried out if they could have found twins for the role and played more on the doppleganger aspect? It was very strong in the script-- the double idea. In my mind, (in the script) they were the same person, and the dark Nina (Lilly) was a complete paranormal type of manifestation-- a phenomenon kind of like a ghost. And, it was part of a cycle that happened the same way time and time again in that theatre, always ending in tragedy for the girl (congratulations and condolences) lucky enough to acquire the lead.
Like James, I'm having difficulty because I had seen the movie first, awhile back, (seems like aeons ago) before reading the script and then watching the movie again. When I read the script, I already had predetermined ideas in my head, so there was some clarity with the movie's slant.
The script seemed to me more mysterious with the double aspect. What's your take on that?
I thought that they were going to have Portman play the part of the double. I saw it as a figment of her imagination for a long time until Lily came to the casting.. But I was STILL waiting for them to write it so that Nina had made her up somehow. And she kind of did because she who did she think she stabbed in the movie when she had actually stabbed herself. It was a figment that she pulled into the bathroom to hide.
I thought that they were going to have Portman play the part of the double. I saw it as a figment of her imagination for a long time until Lily came to the casting.. But I was STILL waiting for them to write it so that Nina had made her up somehow. And she kind of did because she who did she think she stabbed in the movie when she had actually stabbed herself. It was a figment that she pulled into the bathroom to hide.
A little confusing!
Thank you! At least I'm not alone in thinking that they tread a very fine line in the movie. I think they wanted the audience to come to their own conclusions, that yes, indeed, Lilly was all the while, just made up and everything thing we were seeing, was only from the POV of Nina.
Re: Lily, the script shows (page 126, well after the stabbing scene) "Lily turns and walks away. We can see the dark wing tattoos on her back, just to confirm it's actually her."
I took this to mean that the audience is meant to see from Nina's POV, since it seems unlikely that Lily would be allowed to dance in this ballet without the tattoos covered with make-up. As I recall in the film, it shows the black wings on Lily's back, too.
Also, in the film, there's a point toward the end where Nina is "in the wings" going to make an entrance onstage and the stage manager tells her she's in the wrong place and quickly moves her to the other side -- I thought that would have been a good moment to do some tricky camera work (mirror in a mirror or something) but the film didn't seem to take advantage of it.
Yes, I saw that part. She was at the back of the stage. I thought it was because she had never had a lead before and just went to the back of the stage out of habit.
They had to remind her... Kid, you are in the front now! Her self esteem was really poor (understatement)!
Clearly I read the wrong version. Who the hell is Thomas?
I'm going to try to watch the film today. I wonder how long it is since the script I read was a later version and much shorter they must have cut a lot out.
Very good Ray, but STC beats are fifteen so there are a couple of them missing, but very good of you to make them out both for the script and film. Thank you.
So what did you guys think of the characters? Were they well thought out and what did you think about their interactions? Even though this film has some big things happening in it. I still say that it is all the smaller things that make this one great. The details.
Pia, what is STC beats? I know what a beat sheet is, but what / who is STC?
I did think that Nina's character was well thought out... I didn't so much think that Beths character got a lot of "facetime"
Even though I loved the beginning of the film/script with the ballet feet dancing, etc, I do think it would have gone a long way to have us see Beth at the height of her dance, see how good she was, her love of the dance in order for us to get more emotional about her loss. I didn't care that she was a washed up dancer, too old for the part or that Nina got it out from under her. Who cared about Beth? Not me, sorry. They missed the characterization and emotional committment on her part IMHO.
Other than Nina, I don't think there's much character development, but I don't think it was intended -- all of the supporting characters are seen in a slightly different light as the film goes on (as Nina's POV changes) --
I'll try out some thoughts about Erica... Erica starts out (in the film) as a barely visible reflection in a mirror. In the script she remains a mysterious personality but in the film, I think, she simply becomes more plainly visible; she's a sad, nervous woman who worries too much about her sad, nervous daughter.
When Erica forcibly cuts Nina's nails (in the film), it looks like sadism, except that she makes the case that Nina has a history of scratching her skin raw (the socks to cover the hands during Nina's troubled sleep are evidently a tried and true remedy) and Erica is frightened, she's a single mother who has tried to protect her daughter from the terrible things in life, even her daughter's own fingernails.
When Erica shows anger at Nina's late night partying, Erica looks deranged, but I submit that she had reason to worry, it's her (Erica's) house that Nina stumbles back into, and how does a mother not worry under the circumstances (Nina onstage next day). To Erica it had to feel like torture, waiting.
Next morning Nina oversleeps and that's supposed to be Erica's fault, Nina declares she going to move out (finally!) and Erica looks like an only slightly more ruined version of her ruined self. At the end of the film, when Nina is onstage, Erica stares in wonder but also, it looked to me, as if she were willing every last iota of her own life force into her daughter's dance.
I think Barbara Hershey got everything possible from the role, she was at times stoic, hysterical, noble, petty, frightened, fierce.
Dawn, STC is just short for Save The Cat. Check it out. Some swear by it, others don't, but it's still worth looking into.
I thought Erica was well written. I agree that Beth might have been too brief to establish any connection with. I thought Brennan was good. He's probably Yevna in you guy's version. Lily was a bit of a complicated one for me. I want to see the film so I can see how she turned out.
Pia, I cannot believe you haven't seen the movie still.
Thomas is Yevna, who i guess is also Brennan.
Something happens everyday that takes away my time. Right now I'm planning for a 23-24th shoot of Old Wounds...and there are other things to deal with too. It's not always I can watch at work since the phones keep ringing and people come in. Last night I was really tired by the time I sat down.
Thanks for clearing up the names. Makes me wonder why they were different in the script I read since that was a newer and shorter version of the script. I would assume that one would be closer to the final story.
Thanks Pia, Yes, I have heard of it. I suppose I must try to find it!!! Thanks! I think you and Sandra are dead on about Erika, it worked. She was easy to relate to at some level anyway.
I heard a podcast with the writers of Black Swan and I recall them being very forth coming about the process of writing this. Unfortunately I’m not sure if you can still get the back issues of the Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast because the interviewer Jeff Goldsmith has now moved on to his “Q&A” format, which is well worth listening to.
From memory, so don’t quote me on any of this, they explained that the original script was called “Understudy” and did not include any ballet.
It was set in the theater and was a psychological thriller centered around an attack on a lead performer, which propels the understudy into the limelight. I believe that a dual personality for the understudy played a key role in it, because as you might guess the issue of whether the understudy committed the crime was a big part of the story. The writer seemed to think this original story is so distinct from Black Swan that it’s possible another movie could be made of it.
Knowing this seems to explain much of where the Beth subplot originated.
Aronofsky liked the script and then began a long process of notes and rewrites. At some point someone noticed the parallels between a dual personality story and the story of Swan Lake, so they tested a version set in the ballet. In turn, this led them to develop the story in a new direction.
The writer mentioned that during the rewrite process Aronofsky asked him to consider the beats of “The Writer’s Journey” by Chris Vogler. I’ve heard it said that “Save the Cat” is itself a variant of “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”, so Black Swan definitely has these core story beats built into it.
When I read the 107 page long script for this I found it to be a sharp clean read. It was interesting that a script that had been so thoroughly developed had quite a lot of things in it that screenwriting convention frowns on.
Specifically there are many examples of telling the actors what emotion or specific reaction they should play. For me these work fine because if you tell an actor to play “Scared” (see page 13), that’s something they can do. A lesson I took from this is that screenwriting experts have gone too far in declaring these sorts of things to be “unfilmable”.
If you look at this script and film it’s apparent that these things are not unfilmable at all. An extreme example is on page 28, at the end of the scene where Nina watches Lily dancing. The script line is “Nina stares at her, attracted and threatened.” This could be a text book example of something we’re told not to write. But in the film Natalie Portman delivers exactly this.
Since we're all reading different versions of the script, it's tough to quote lines, but I will anyways, from the 129 page draft I read.
You're correct that this script is littered with asides and unfilmables, and IMO, there are most likely 10+ extra pages of waste, because of them. The line you quoted isn't really an unfilmable, at least IMO, it's not.
But check these out and tell me what you think...
Page 1 - "Self-conscious and hungry for approval, Nina hides her insecurity behind sweet, likable facade." - This line is really the first intro to Nina, as she opens her eyes from sleep in her bed. None of this will translate to film in that opening scene, therefor, it's unflilmable and a cheat, actually.
Same page, a few lines down - "...they testify to how long she's been a ballet dancer." - Here, the writer is telling us exactly why we're seeing all these different sized shoes in the shot. It's a cheat again, and an unnecessary waste of space.
Such examples run rampant throughout the script, and is one reason why the page count is so long, compared to the filmed version.
If you look at this script and film it’s apparent that these things are not unfilmable at all. An extreme example is on page 28, at the end of the scene where Nina watches Lily dancing. The script line is “Nina stares at her, attracted and threatened.” This could be a text book example of something we’re told not to write. But in the film Natalie Portman delivers exactly this.
Philip
Thank you so much for this, Philip.
I remember that line and thought the same thing.
Just want to mention here, that I think it was dmc who mentioned, (apologies if I'm wrong this thread is already getting long) that they were unable to generate any emotion for Beth because she really wasn't shown that much. This is very interesting because that's exactly what's happening in the film:
Korolyevna, in his speech at the gala-fundraiser on page 53:
Undoubtedly, many of you have heard the news about Beth Macintyre. She is in our hearts. I'm sure we all wish her a speedy recovery...
But we are not here to mourn. We are here to celebrate.
***That says it all. Cast offs are cast offs. Be they well done ballerinas or business men whose heart can't take the indulgent and long lunches of steak and wine, the pressure of airline life, the fat they've accumulated on their bones....
When they're out, they're out and life goes on.
I think they made the right decision to keep Beth's part short. They knew and wanted this story to be about Nina. Had they went off in trying to show more of Beth, they would have lost focus.
I kind of disagree about your post about Beth, respectfully. It is just the opposite now!
Let me explain myself. At the beginning of the film and the Script.. there was nothing much about Beth. We didn't care about her and in my opnion, we should have.
Now.. this part that you mention.. "Undoubtedly, many of you have heard the news about Beth Macintyre. She is in our hearts. I'm sure we all wish her a speedy recovery...
Does just the oppoiste, it makes us rethink our feelings about Beth and that is why she is so pathetic in the hosspital and it kills use to watch her stab herself after her horrible accicent that we are not supposed to care about - but we do, cause now she is hurt and we are human and we care.
That line you quoted only makes the dude look like a jerk that he is and solidifies thiat in our minds!
In the script (page 91 of 129) there's a scene in which Nina fumbles in the kitchen, on her own, in the empty apartment, and the script has the line, "For the first time in her life, her mother is not there preparing breakfast."
I can see giving that as a direction to the actress but does it belong in the script?
Also, right above it, another wasted line "The apartment feels strangely quiet.
Now, don't get me wrong guys and gals, I totally understand why one would like and appreciate that line, and also say that it "adds" to the read and the feel that you get from it.
But, in terms of a Spec script, it's a waste...and it's a cheat.
There's obviously a fine line, and sometimes that fine line is quite big and fat. But, you know...I'm always going to spot this kind of stuff and call it out, cause it's just weak, and doesn't belong in a Spec script.
I kind of disagree about your post about Beth, respectfully. It is just the opposite now!
Let me explain myself. At the beginning of the film and the Script.. there was nothing much about Beth. We didn't care about her and in my opnion, we should have.
Now.. this part that you mention.. "Undoubtedly, many of you have heard the news about Beth Macintyre. She is in our hearts. I'm sure we all wish her a speedy recovery...
Does just the oppoiste, it makes us rethink our feelings about Beth and that is why she is so pathetic in the hosspital and it kills use to watch her stab herself after her horrible accicent that we are not supposed to care about - but we do, cause now she is hurt and we are human and we care.
That line you quoted only makes the dude look like a jerk that he is and solidifies thiat in our minds!
IMHO.
I know I'm weird, but I never thought of Korolyevna as a jerk. I saw him as a man of passion. Of course, he was morally wrong, (in a way) but I believe he had good intentions, wanting to bring Nina out of herself, make her strong, make her transcend the boundaries she had placed upon herself.
Sandra, my dear, you bring up a great point, and one I'll try to engage some peeps on.
The script and movie centers completely on Nina's character, and because of that, no other character has nay real life. This in itself isn't a bad thing, nor is it different than lots of scripts and movies.
But for me, it's stifling. I don't get to know anythign about anyone else, cause every scene goes through Nina, and for me, Nina's pretty flatline and dull.
Is Thomas a bad guy? Nah, he's not a bad guy, just a cliche guy in power, who uses that power to be with the girls he promotes. It works that way in lots of circles in the same and different ways.
The one "good" thing he does, is promote Nina after she stood up for herself with him, so because of that one good action wei saw from him, we have to think he's a "good guy".
Same thing but reverse with Lily. Although she's the most dynamic character by far, and most engaging, we see her spike Nina's drink, and maybe try to sabotage her a bit ion other ways. But that's the way it goes in this kind of business. Lily wasn't a bad person, anymore than Thomas was a good person.
They're both who they are, based on their position in this situation, and we don't really ever got to know for sure anything about them.
Remember, that's my opinion. Lots and lots of peeps will swoop in here and say I'm completely wrong...and look...we're looking at an early draft of a script with a $13 Million budget, that grossed $328 Million WW, won awards, and did a shit.load on aftermarket money as well.
It shouldn't be in a Spec script though, whether or not that's what's selling.
Nina is flatline and dull? I think in order to have a film be claustrophobic and insane it can only focus on her. The more the other characters are delved into, the less claustrophobic the film would be....and no, still haven't seen the film...
Jeff, it's probably my fault. I'm supposed to be "guiding" this discussion along, but I had some stuff came up that has to take front seat for me. Besides I was sick for 3 days last week. I had a plan for how I was going to conduct the discussion, but too many posts were made while I was sick and I lost track of what everyone had said.
The film is supposed to be claustrophobic. The script at least make that work.
I asked you about Rear Window, it's a GREAT classic where most of it takes place in one apartment. Did it feel small? No. I don't know what you mean with small anyway. Do you need lots of locations, lots of characters and a lot of views of the sky? A good story, wether in book form or film just needs to have a lot of conflict. It can even take place inside a coffin...
Of course, Pia. Scripts or films can take place in a coffin, a single room, a cave, a castle, or a bar. BUT, if it does decide to take place in those confines, how can you say it's not a small film? Or concept?
IMO, it's pretty fucking obvious when we have a big concept and film and a small concept and film.
I understadn no on else seems to understand this and/or agree with me, but I must be obviously missing something that I don't see.
Help me...enlighten me...make me see this light. I'm serious, too. I don't understand and it's frustrating.
I think we might have different ideas of what small is. IMHO, it means, small uneventful forgettable.
In your case, I've seen you make that comment several times about films and like it's a bad thing, but what is wrong with a film that takes place in one location with few characters. If done well, I think it's awesome. I guess the smaller the space that the film takes place in, the deeper into the characters we have to dig and the "bigger" the film, the shallower it can be? Where's Rick when you need him???
Of course, Pia. Scripts or films can take place in a coffin, a single room, a cave, a castle, or a bar. BUT, if it does decide to take place in those confines, how can you say it's not a small film? Or concept?
IMO, it's pretty fucking obvious when we have a big concept and film and a small concept and film.
I understadn no on else seems to understand this and/or agree with me, but I must be obviously missing something that I don't see.
Help me...enlighten me...make me see this light. I'm serious, too. I don't understand and it's frustrating.
I think that people are misreading the word "small" and taking it in a negative light. The enclosed spaces they utilized to entertain the universal theme and scope of Swan Lake is reminiscent of live theatre. Small does not equal bad.
"Nah, he's not a bad guy, just a cliche guy in power, who uses that power to be with the girls he promotes.."
I think that he is a jerk.
Oh.. do you guys think that Lily did go back and have sex with Nina after she got her fucked up? I do. I don't think Nina imagined that, and I also think that you are right, she took her out on purpose the night before her big day so she could go there hereself. It worked.
We do seem to have a different idea of what the word "small" means in terms of a script, concept, and film.
And, once again, Sandra, you are SPOT ON with what you said. "Small" is not necessarily a bad thing, but peeps seem to jump up and think I'm saying something I'm not.
"Small" can be good...I absolutely love some small films.
I'm just saying...Rick and other peeps are saying how "deep" and "big" this is, and I just can't see it. I'm sorry for that. Don't hold it against me.
What do you guys and gals feel about the # of "oh so sad and lonely" orphans and wrylies? You think it doesn't matter or come into play at all? Just wondering.
And, BTW, you're not doing a bad job here, Pia. I know you're busy and you jumped in and took control of this...that's cool and we love you for it...
"Nah, he's not a bad guy, just a cliche guy in power, who uses that power to be with the girls he promotes.."
I think that he is a jerk.
Oh.. do you guys think that Lily did go back and have sex with Nina after she got her fucked up? I do. I don't think Nina imagined that, and I also think that you are right, she took her out on purpose the night before her big day so she could go there hereself. It worked.
Dmc, now's the time that we should take a poll, perhaps?
Do you think that Lilly was a complete manifestation existing only in Nina's mind?
Or:
Do you think that Lilly was real?
I don't think she was real.
I also think that Beth did not really stab herself with that nail file repeatedly in her face.
It's hard to say what they were after with Lily, as the script and the film ar5e very different in that regard.
I feel Lily was a "real" person for sure, but in the script, it's hard to tell. If she wasn't, I'm upset as I hate that "it was all a dream or in that person's head" shit!!
I agree that Lily went downtown with Nina, and I think Nina frickin' loved it. So, that means that I also think Lily did it more for the purpose of fuckin' wit poor, little, innocent Nina.
Doesn't make her a bad person (Lily, that is) IMO..
LOL.. blue, I think so too! She was mettin wit her!
Blue I have read your every comment, don't go anywhere. I think you have a deeper undstanding of film than I do and I am not sure how to comment yet.
This is my first go round here at simplyscripts. But please keep posting, I am learning from you. From you all!
I am not sure how I feel about wrylies. I get confused when I read scripts because they are never EVER like they are supposed to be, because I don't think they are the spec, I think most are production or shooting, but none ever stick to the books. And that is not a bad thing, they read so much easier. But sometimes the Direction is a little over the top and yes, CHEAT!!!
Sorry I didn't have time to contribute. I had 2 features and a half a feature to read for members, and I just couldn't squeeze this in. I did download the script and start it though.
I did look at the discussion here about the unfilmables. They are interesting examples, and the points are well made in the discussion. Let me touch on the shoes on the wall. If that description is left as a barebones description, a lot of people will still get the point that this is the room she grew up in, the relevant thing being she has never really grown up. But people reading quick, and trying to acclimate themselves to the set up of the story can miss that. I think it was worth sparing the few extra words to make sure we see this critical element right at the beginning. Those few words as much as anything else set the tone.
If you do something like this just once every 5 pages, what are we talking, 20 extra lines for the script? And maybe not even, depending on how things end on the page.
So in my inexperienced opinion, I think it's ok to do this on a limited basis, picking your moments. Of course, there's none in my work, Jeff cleans them out!
It's hard to say what they were after with Lily, as the script and the film ar5e very different in that regard.
I feel Lily was a "real" person for sure, but in the script, it's hard to tell. If she wasn't, I'm upset as I hate that "it was all a dream or in that person's head" shit!!
Yup. Script Lilly and Film Lilly were very different I thought. I imagined in the script that the "unrealness" and the "doppleganger effect" were much more pronounced.
If they really intended Lilly to look more ghost like, they could have done it obviously, but they chose not to.
Really though, I would love to hear from the writers and the director on this. Ohmmmmm! Calling you.... Ohmmmmm.... Tell us your thoughts so we can be all like, well, Ohmmmm.....
I am in. I think she was real. btw Nina "ehanced" things in her own mind. But not everything, so that is why some of the things Lily does is hard to know if it was real or memorex!
Do you think that Lilly was a complete manifestation existing only in Nina's mind? Or: Do you think that Lilly was real?
I really don't feel like digging through the entire script or rewatching the DVD, but LILY was most certainly real as other characters interacted with her in both screenplay and film. None of that A BEAUTIFUL MIND hogwash where multiple figments were conversing with each other.
In the screenplay the DOORMAN at NINA's condo/apartment states something akin to "I didn't see you leave", indicating he saw LILY, who looks just like her, enter already. NINA enters her home to find ERICA and LILY having a conversation. At the theater LILY is introduced by YEVNA to the company. DAVID doesn't give NINA any "WTF are you talking about?" when NINA states "she looks just like me". The COSTUMER seems to be aware of LILY's fitting as the black and white swan alternate. When NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to YEVNA about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". YEVNA knows there was a LILY.
In the film everyone stops and listens in the soloists room to listen to LILY explain her tardiness due to getting off at the wrong stop. THOMAS busts NINA's balls over complaining to LILY about how hard he's pushing her. Again, when NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to THOMAS about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". If LILY's imaginary why is DAVID giggling all warm and fuzzy when she's rubbing his cod-piece behind curtains across the stage?
Now, does NINA have some... questionable recollections of events? As the story is told from her POV? Um, yeah. Lezzy wet dream? Quite possible entirely fictional. I believe LILY did go home with TOM rather than NINA.
I also think that Beth did not really stab herself with that nail file repeatedly in her face.
BETH did not stab herself in the face with the nail file. Slo-mo & pause that scene again. It's NINA stabbing herself, and it's all imaginary. Had that really happened surely the police woulda been in contact with Miss Sayers & Mr Thomas within 24hrs for an assault at a hospital.
When NINA goes flippy-dippy full throttle paranoia to YEVNA about LILY trying to take her part he doesn't say "WTF are you talking about?". YEVNA knows there was a LILY.
Thank you, Ray. I know that I might be pushing the limits of what is reality and what is not, but I really do find it questionable.
You have written:
YEVNA knows there was a Lilly.
***and that's exactly what I think too...
Only, I think that with a shift in perception:
One can imagine that Yevna knows of "the doppleganger effect".
Seriously, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I had believed that this discomforting circumstance had existed and will exist forever in this theatre. It's as natrural as spring, summer, fall and winter and Yevna knows this.
I did not think he would say, "What the fuck you think you seeing?!" because I think he knows already the whole story.
His job is to bring the girls along. I didn't feel any malfeasance on his part.
Please note: Anyone wanting to judge me on this. My scrutiny comes from a lot of years experiencing people. For an example:
Your father might have laid down the law and made you do your homework when you were a child. You might have said at one time, "I hate you! I absolutely hate you!" and...
At that time, you really did feel your father was like an evil villain. ...
Only later did you learn how much he loved and cared for you.
Well...
That's how I feel about Yevna. His prototype is very appealing to me.
In my world, I was the little girl who purposely got detentions so that she could get a ride home with her teacher.
Yes, I did that. At ten years old!!! I meant no harm, but I really did enjoy being with men a lot older. Still, I think that our culture is messed up because I think that most women want mature men to father their children and people are sexually repressed to such a point that they can't even touch their own children lovingly (not in a sexual manner but naturally) and this is a terrible shame.
My daddy used to give me foot massages. He used to hold me and feed me the dill pickles he grew and preserved on his own.
Nobody can take that away from me. He was the most excellent man in the universe!
When I look at Black Swan, with all of the sexual innuendo, I'm seeing things from a bit of an angle that a lot of people might be uncomfortable with, but truthfully, I think:
We are all so starved for affection. And I think (sorry if I'm being long)
That long ago (in my time) we girls could do each others' hair and give each other hand massages etc. and no one would label us as lezzies. We were just doing what was right and felt good. How could that be wrong?
So back to The Movie:
Yevna was a passionate soul. He wanted to enjoy life. So what? He has intercourse with Nina. Since when has that become a crime?
He wants perfection in the performance at any cost to the performer.
His proteges mean nothing to him. He picks women who look the same ("he has his type") and uses them artistically and sexually till they are burnt out, then discards them (see Beth).
BTW all of these "unfilmmables" that people are mentioning are just there for the sake of clarity...explaining to readers what they signify.
If the writer did not explain WHY there were dancing shoes of various sizes on the wall the Production staff might not pick up on their importance.
By telling us what it means it eases the Director's job as well.
As long as you are providing images that make sense, then this type of clarification is fine....proper, even.
What you should be taking from it is this: How the screenwriter manages to suggest 12 years backstory in one simple image. That's the real crux of the matter, not the technicality.
We do seem to have a different idea of what the word "small" means in terms of a script, concept, and film.
And, once again, Sandra, you are SPOT ON with what you said. "Small" is not necessarily a bad thing, but peeps seem to jump up and think I'm saying something I'm not.
"Small" can be good...I absolutely love some small films.
I'm just saying...Rick and other peeps are saying how "deep" and "big" this is, and I just can't see it. I'm sorry for that. Don't hold it against me.
What do you guys and gals feel about the # of "oh so sad and lonely" orphans and wrylies? You think it doesn't matter or come into play at all? Just wondering.
And, BTW, you're not doing a bad job here, Pia. I know you're busy and you jumped in and took control of this...that's cool and we love you for it...
...
BUT...
You need to watch the movie...ASAP!!!!
As you've pointed out elsewhere, the film has been a huge success. It opened small and spread with word of mouth and became an international hit. It also won some of the biggest awards and was incredibly well received by critics and audiences.
If we look objectively at the film, you can see why this is.
It's a drama with the HIGHEST stakes possible. It's a story of obsession. Of life-time sacrifice. Of manipulation. A story about the loss of innocence. Nina's whole life is built towards this one moment and on the line is her sanity, her LIFE and EVEN more than that...her spirituality, or soul, if you prefer. All this tied up in a very cohesive story set in the world of ballet. Fantastic juxtaposition of grace and delicacy with sheer strength of body and will, darkness and desire and reinventing one of, if not THE, most popular ballets of all time.
On top of that it investigates fame, the entertainment industry...one of the major zeitgeist's of the modern era where everybody wants to be famous.
Again, these are about the highest stakes possible for an individual in any story. It runs the entire gamut of human experience. (Greatest dreams, greatest fears, life in danger, soul in danger).
It is about as perfectly constructed as a drama can get. It speaks to people on multiple levels.
We are in danger of hitting the wall of absurdity when we dismiss theme as "unimportant" and then predictably spend more time on orphans, wrylies and the dreaded (and much misunderstood) unfilmmables.
I'm not having a go here Jeff, I'm really not. It's just we've hit a point where it has become unsustainable to keep going on about certain things when they are in every pro script and to tear these pro scripts apart for the most menial things whilst at the same time completely missing the qualities that put them in a different stratosphere altogether from the pre-pro script.
"What you should be taking from it is this: How the screenwriter manages to suggest 12 years backstory in one simple image. That's the real crux of the matter, not the technicality." quoted from ScarTissueFilms
Hey, there, I thought this was a Screenwriting Class thread and we would be allowed to learn at our own speed. When I, for example, ask about a wasted line of text it's because I really want to know and I appreciate getting a quick reply. It's possible that many of us still have questions about what belongs in a script and what doesn't. Here's a line of text that, as a writer, I wonder about: on page 13 of 129, after Korolyevna tells Nina when she's dancing she looks like a scared little girl, etc. we read... "Too thin skinned for the criticism, her focus falters." that seems to me like the writer is dumbing down the text, the line needs to read what Nina's physical reaction is, describe the look on her face, which might have suggested pain, humiliation, fear, hatred, anger, confusion, disbelief, hopelessness... who knows what else. All we get is "too thin skinned for the criticism" which only shows Nina to be evidently not right for the role.
And then we read of Nina "Breathing hard, she's too ashamed to meet Yevna's eyes." which seems like a shortcut to me, the writer bypasses the character Nina and directly tells the reader what emotion we need to see. Now, if this is the way they do it in the industry, I'd like to know.
It does all the things that you say, it's just left at the actors/actresses discretion as to how to portray it.
It doesn't suggest she's not right for the role, it suggests she's insecure..which of course is a large part of the film..how she has to unleash her inner "Black Swan" to compete. It contrasts with Lily who can make a mistake and laugh it off.
Your second example seems to contradict your earlier point. He tells you exactly what she's doing, exactly where she's looking and even her state of mind (as you requested in the first instance)...but you see it as bypassing Nina's character.
You're reading Industry material. That should answer your questions as to whether it's valid or not.
I'm only trying to help. These same questions come up all the time. It is explained time and time again that it's fine for you to do this. All the pros agree. The evidence is in every pro script. This is a script being developed under the tutelage of one of the best Directors.
I don't know what more I can say.
This, I suppose: Character/Actor's Directions are NOT unfilmmable.
It's always so hard for me, as a writer, you want your script to sizzle and keep the interest and without wrylies or some direction, that is hard. Maybe for inexperienced writers anyway.
There is also, style. I think stickng to the format, etc is a must, but then we always see a little style out of the best writers, and I like that. If it was all laid down flat then it wouldn't be an interesting read. Even if the content was hot!
"Your second example seems to contradict your earlier point. He tells you exactly what she's doing, exactly where she's looking and even her state of mind (as you requested in the first instance)...but you see it as bypassing Nina's character." quote from Rick
No, I didn't request her state of mind, I suggest that what the writer needs to supply is a description of what can be seen; pain, humiliation etc.
so, for me it makes a difference to say that "Nina is too ashamed" or to say "Nina looks too ashamed" and I'm going to try to be more careful in my own writing, so I learned something.
"Your second example seems to contradict your earlier point. He tells you exactly what she's doing, exactly where she's looking and even her state of mind (as you requested in the first instance)...but you see it as bypassing Nina's character."
No, I didn't request her state of mind, I suggest that what the writer needs to supply is a description of what can be seen; pain, humiliation etc.
"Breathing hard, she's too ashamed to meet Yevna's eyes."
He makes it quite clear.
She's breathing hard, is embarrassed and can't look at Yvena.
EDIT: In your new example:
She's either ashamed or not. If she is ashamed...you can simply say she's ashamed.
The actor will act ashamed and LOOK ashamed.
The only purpose of adding the proviso "looks" would be if she's actually feeling something else...ie pretending. "Nina looks ashamed, but smiles maliciously when Yvena's back is turned!"
It's always so hard for me, as a writer, you want your script to sizzle and keep the interest and without wrylies or some direction, that is hard. Maybe for inexperienced writers anyway.
There is also, style. I think stickng to the format, etc is a must, but then we always see a little style out of the best writers, and I like that. If it was all laid down flat then it wouldn't be an interesting read. Even if the content was hot!
You all are so awesome to read your POVs.
The only thing to worry about with unfilmmables is presenting specific info. you want the viewer to know in the description area that's outside of the scope of the visuals you've presented at that time.
For instance;
The scene is a guy holding a snow globe and he's crying because his mother has died and it reminds him of all his past Christmases with her.
"Tears run down Rob's cheeks as he clutches the snow globe that his mother used to put out every Christmas.".
If you film that as it is, you don't get the idea he's upset because of his mother...it's just a guy crying over a globe.
Instead you might have a montage showing the Globe throughout different years at Christmas with his mother there, then cut to the empty house in the present and the scene with him crying. IE show it.
Or you can reveal the info. in dialogue. "Mum used to love this thing, she'd always put it in the same place every year. I thought it was corny at the time...now she's gone..." IE tell us.
Character intro's are fine...and are an EXPECTED part of a script. You can simply spell out the nature of someone's personality. The writer is then responsible for backing up that personality later in the script through action and dialogue. The character description helps people to instantly picture and understand the characters. It helps everyone involved get an immediate image of the person.
Character directions are also fine...actors can portray any emotion and can decide exactly how to play the scene. You don't have to spell out every little physical action.
According to Rick, there is absolutely nothing wrong with anything that is usually wrong, as long as it's in a Pro script, which obviously makes no sense.
Rick, you have an answer and an argument for everything and it's getting very frustrating.
Where do we draw the line? Here, we have a 129 page script for a 100 minute movie...thus, we have approximately an extra 30 pages of overwriting, orphans, wrylies, and unfilmables and asides, and you argue that everyone of them is great, perfect, and acceptable in every way.
What if the script was actually 139 pages? Would you still defend them all?
How about 149 or 159 pages? At what point would you agree that enough's enough, and actually agree that maybe the writer has gone a little overboard?
And going back to this theme thing again, you completely misquoted me, saying I don't believe there's theme in films. There is theme in everything...it's universal and always present. Because of that, it doesn't matter to me, and I don't need to bring it up or even discuss it. MY enjoyment or lack thereof, will never be swayed by what the theme is.
Where do we draw the line? Here, we have a 129 page script for a 100 minute movie...thus, we have approximately an extra 30 pages of overwriting, orphans, wrylies, and unfilmables and asides, and you argue that everyone of them is great, perfect, and acceptable in every way.
Not quite Jeff. Cornetto wanted us to read the earliest version available on the web and that's the one he found. The version I read was a much newer draft and only had 107 pages.
PS. Should anyone want to take a quick peek at that one, just let me know. I don't remember where it came from, but I think it was the official script posted by the studios or something like that.
I'll agree if someone points out an example that's obviously "wrong".
What's "usually wrong"?
Where did you get the rules from? These rules are coming from pre-pro writers on the internet, and not from the Industry.
Orphans or whatever...fair enough, although they are hardly going to kill a story but you're leading people astray by telling them that character directions are incorrect. They aren't.
This is a proven fact.
This script did not become the movie anyway. Beth's character has largely been removed, which accounts for a lot of time, for a start. Pia says she's read a 107 min. version, which is probably closer to the actual film.
As for the theme thing...every last detail in this script is defined by the theme. The characters are there to illuminate the theme...It's about the transformation into the wild and destructive force of the Black Swan...hence Nina at the start is made the direct opposite (insecure, virginal, stunted, child-like) The plot is defined by the theme. Every interaction.
Her mother is purely there to act as an obstacle to the transformation. She's there to artificially keep her "innocent".
Thomas is there as the corruptor, the guardian/mentor figure to begin the transformation.
Lily as a direct personification of the Black Swan and Nina's sexual awakening.
Beth represents the dangers of the transformation.
All the motifs used (the Pink, the shoes, the dancing things in the subway , her inability to cook an egg, the rash etc) are there just to illuminate the theme.
However it began, the whole thing has been moulded into a cohesive whole to represent the unifying vision of the theme. The film is even more focussed, ripping out anything that deviates from the message.
THEME: In the visual arts, a theme is a broad idea or a message conveyed by a work, such as a performance, a painting, or a motion picture. This message is usually about life, society or human nature. Themes are the fundamental and often universal ideas explored in a work.
The "FUNDAMENTAL" ideas explored. You can't discuss this script without them, because everything that's in the script has been consciously created to reveal the theme.
It is the fundamental, unfying vision of each individual element.
All cinema is about, reducing it to its most basic form, is Juxtaposition.
Juxtaposition is the placement of two things (usually abstract concepts, though it can refer to physical objects) near each other.
White Swan vs Black Swan Nina vs Lily Erica vs Thomas etc.
These juxtapositions create the meaning. Unless a script is properly constructed, it will not have a strong theme. It is not universal, far from it.
Very, very few pre pro scripts have an identifiable theme. They are just plot. Things happen for no real reason, characters don't really represent any particular values. It's why they are often so hard to read because you can go through 50 pages and not have a clue what the thing is supposed to be about.
The thing that you consider unworthy of discussion is the very basis of what helps to create such focused scripts...it enables people to understand what's important in a script and dispense with what's unnecessary.
Of course, it also depends on the type of film you're making. The more high brow, the higher the importance will be placed on theme, generally.
But again, I get confused, cause they say SHOW don't TELL. ugh!
I can totally understand the confusion. I laboured under the same misapprehension for a while.
What you want is CLARITY.
You give the visuals (eg Nina breathing hard, and not looking..and then you are free to clarify why for the reader..eg she's embarrased).
Character reactions are not unfilmmable because humans are expert at reading body language and good actors whole purpose is to be able to deliver realistic performances.
W...T...F? Seriously, Sandra...what are you trying to say here? I for one, am completely clueless...
The movie (not so much the script) is littered with references to sexuality-- perhaps even transcendence through its unabashed experience, in its purest form. Yevna is all about passion and yes too, restraint, but only to the degree it serves one well. Otherwise, it's a hindrance.
My words in the prior post reference people's perception. How they view things and determine what's acceptable. In our world today still there are areas where it's common for fourteen year old girls to marry much older men. People might make a case against Yevna because:
A. He was using his carnal passion with bad intentions and he's seducing a young lady far too young for him
B. Carnal passion is evil to begin with and must be repressed
I know that view point. I understand it. I even agree with it to some extent, when it's appropriate, but I also believe that some apparent laws need to be broken sometimes. Yevna breaks the laws, crosses boundaries, but he does so with good intentions. He knows that life does go on. He understands this deep within his bones. Forget the theatre entirely. He knows that there's a time for everything in its season. In his speech at the gala fundraiser, you can read him one of two ways:
1. See him as being highly insincere, playing his part well.
2. Playing his part well, no nonsense, but with a repressed sense of the old love for Beth, and a sadness where, if he lets that out of the locker inside of his heart, he will be ruined. He will be a ruined and broken man, unable to perform his duties.
These two perceptions exist. The beautiful thing about the characters in this movie are their real life texture. The movie is really about the white and black of the nature in man, but we see in the characters that they're all grey. Or gray.
**Anyways, one thing I wanted to say:
Nina kills the evil twin. The evil twin is inside of herself and thus she kills herself.
Can anyone remember if Lilly is shown after Nina has died?
I think that what this script has to offer us most as developing writers is its focus.
What I mean by that is that every possible moment and every single detail are focused on the main theme: that spiritual transcendence in art has been bastardized by the imposition of a rigid, hierarchical, corrupt structure and that in order to achieve physical transcendence to fame and recognition in today's society, artists must abandon any hope of spiritual transcendence.
Every character contributes to this. Every member of the company is a victim of structure, of being beholden to a dominant patriarch who uses and abuses them. Beth specifically suggests that the destruction of artists is cyclical, ongoing. Veronika shows the way in which artists are pitted against each other.
Nina and Lily represent the duality of the universe which our protagonist hopes to encompass.
Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models.
Minor characters are just as important. The Jittery Fan and others show the way that the public responds to celebrity rather than art, and the way in which this affects the artist.
Every plot point, every action of every character, is directly aimed at (whatever version you want of) the script's theme. No witty dialogue, no stylistic moments, no laughs. Every line is advancing the theme. Every moment feeds into the theme. This writer has something that he wants to say about the world, and it's the only thing he's looking to say, and he's not going to say anything else about anything else.
Focus. Everything for a reason. I think the script is very, very, very tight. This is what we should be working towards. No matter the size, scope, genre (and f*** "genre", anyway!) of your script, it should be THIS tight. This is how you get at meaning...by removing anything which does not directly fit that meaning.
I think it's a brilliant script. Could get better, sure, and did get better. Some funky dialogue here and there in my opinion, leading to a few inconsistencies in my view of Nina in particular. Some things a bit too on on the nose. But my hat is off to Heyman. Great work.
Those are my initial thoughts. Once I've had a chance to browse the thread a bit more I'll start arguing with Jeff or something.
Characters aren't "real". They're not real people. Every character is a representation of an idea, just as the plot is a representation of ideas. Black Swan is a script which approaches very metaphysical ideas. It's really irrelevant to the story -- maybe not to the plot, but to the story -- whether Lily is "real", because that word doesn't particularly have any meaning in this context. Lily represents the Black Swan -- whatever that means to you -- so what is important about this for the story is that at the end, Yevna, the patriarch, is having sex with the Black Swan, not the White Swan.
Perhaps the question is this: if Nina is an unreliable perspective, and we are to assume Yevna's perspective is relatively in keeping with an "objective" perspective to the extent that the perspective generally shared by the people who populate the story (aside from Nina) is "objective"...was he tearing Nina's clothes off, or Lily's, while Nina thought she was watching from the other room? I would vote Lily's, personally -- I do think that at that level they are meant to be two separate distinct people in the film -- but I really don't see the point. There is no objective reality in film, so determining whether someone is "real" or not seems kinda ridiculous.
As to unfilmables --
I think they're well used in the script. The script is complex. People are stupid. Readers who are in a position to impact the script at a production stage might not understand certain things if they weren't pointed out explicitly. It would be nice if one could always assume an ideal reader, but it's not the case (Pauline Kael argues that we must if we are to keep our art intact, in her article "The Future of Movies" which I typed up but which no-one read...). They got in my way from time to time, yes, but it's a script, not a movie. The point is to be clear, and it was clear.
A further thought --
It's interesting that the film's exploration of art versus structure is portrayed as one of women versus men. I hope there's room in the world for us male artists, too. I think it's interesting to consider to what extent "creativity" is a feminine characteristic and to what extent "being a selfish controlling piece of s***" is a male characteristic, in the script, in art in general, and in life in general. I wonder how different our view of art and creativity as they relate to gender would be if we lived in a matriarchy? Do artists rail against men as a gender because they associate men with control? Might be interesting to compare and contrast the views of masculinity and femininity in Black Swan with those in The Tree of Life, which to my eye criticizes masculinity very heavily but also attempts to portray a harmonization in its conclusion, contrary to Black Swan's bleak closing.
"Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models."
I think everything you said made sense to me except the quoted above. Respectfully.
Erika foster Nina in everyway shape or form, good or bad! Mostly bad. But the lack of father is a stretch for me. Doesn't even come into play at all.
And if you say that her teacher is taking the place of the father, I will respond tha that is even a more of a stretch unless the script is a reversal of oedipus.
Just my thoughts. Glad to have more involvement here of seasoned writers!!!!
Although Erica does literally "foster" Nina in that she feeds her, clothes her, and helps to create her worldview, I was attempting to convey a broader point.
If Nina is representative of young artists (I am massively simplifying here in order to hopefully make my point), then her parents represent what young artists "come from". Erica is without compassion, without emotional connection, without anything that is needed to foster Nina's creative side, her emotional side, or her Black Swan side. She can provide nothing to help Nina grow into what she wants and needs to grow into; therefore, she cannot truly foster her.
As for the father, consider the following:
Joe has a mother named Sue and a father named Roy. John has a mother named Emily, but no father. One day, they both commit a crime together and both go to jail. Why did each man do it?
--------------------------
I don't know what the average person would say about Joe, but I'll sure as heck bet I know what they'd say about John.
Every little detail in a story comes with a complex set of connotations. And a person's parents are not just a little detail, they're a big one. This woman, Nina, we're trying to figure her out, and this is a huge clue in my opinion.
For me I’m not totally sure that Lily represents the Black Swan. I’d say she is a balanced person, confident and comfortable with herself, and as such she represents an opposite of Nina, everything that Nina is not.
The other key function of Lily in the story is as a youthful substitute performer to Nina. By having her in the story we understand that Nina is replaceable and under threat the whole time. One way in which this is great story-telling is to take this antagonist character and have her be friendly. This makes their relationship far more compelling than if she was a snide villain.
The script I read for this struck me as being very clear on what the emotional path through the story was. In almost every scene you are told (yes told, as well as shown) what the prevalent emotion of this scene is.
For me these emotional cues are effective and I agree with the comments above that actors can be expected to perform them without the need for teeth grinding details.
I think that what this script has to offer us most as developing writers is its focus.
What I mean by that is that every possible moment and every single detail are focused on the main theme: that spiritual transcendence in art has been bastardized by the imposition of a rigid, hierarchical, corrupt structure and that in order to achieve physical transcendence to fame and recognition in today's society, artists must abandon any hope of spiritual transcendence.
Every character contributes to this. Every member of the company is a victim of structure, of being beholden to a dominant patriarch who uses and abuses them. Beth specifically suggests that the destruction of artists is cyclical, ongoing. Veronika shows the way in which artists are pitted against each other.
Nina and Lily represent the duality of the universe which our protagonist hopes to encompass.
Erica (and Nina's lack of a father) suggests that artists are not fostered and have no role models.
Minor characters are just as important. The Jittery Fan and others show the way that the public responds to celebrity rather than art, and the way in which this affects the artist.
Every plot point, every action of every character, is directly aimed at (whatever version you want of) the script's theme. No witty dialogue, no stylistic moments, no laughs. Every line is advancing the theme. Every moment feeds into the theme. This writer has something that he wants to say about the world, and it's the only thing he's looking to say, and he's not going to say anything else about anything else.
Focus. Everything for a reason. I think the script is very, very, very tight. This is what we should be working towards. No matter the size, scope, genre (and f*** "genre", anyway!) of your script, it should be THIS tight. This is how you get at meaning...by removing anything which does not directly fit that meaning.
I think it's a brilliant script. Could get better, sure, and did get better. Some funky dialogue here and there in my opinion, leading to a few inconsistencies in my view of Nina in particular. Some things a bit too on on the nose. But my hat is off to Heyman. Great work.
Those are my initial thoughts. Once I've had a chance to browse the thread a bit more I'll start arguing with Jeff or something.
Wow. We've had some excellent posts in this thread and this is one of them!
If this keeps up, this freaking thread is going to start to rival the movie in its own fashion.
You guys are killing me here...seriously, killing me with all this analysis BS of stuff that is either 100% obvious and no reason to bring up or discuss, or so out there, off the wall, that no one cares...or at least I sure don't care.
Chris you bring up some interesting things and some downright knee slappers. The Jittery Fan stuff is quite comical and you've kind of made my day, as I can't stop laughing about different scenarios I've been creating in my head, based on your comments.
If this doesn't make sense to you, just chalk it up to coming from me, who has no clue what he's talking about.
Rick, you continue to go into great detail about things that are so obvious and have already been agreed on, yet you gloss over or completely don't address other things that I bring up that you mot likely can't get yourself to agree to, but also know you can't argue.
The reason I am commenting on this early 129 page draft is because that's the draft that was posted here that we were supposedly going to discuss. It doesn't matter if it's a 1st or 32nd draft. If there are technical issues, they should be addressed.
I've brought up several times why this script runs 129 pages, yet no one seems to think that's an issue, nor can you agree with me on what I said.
Orphans, wrylies, asides and unfilmables have nothing to do with the theme or story. They do not add or detract from either. Are we in agreement on this, or are you going to somehow make an argument pout of this?
I hope you're going to agree with me, so, assuming that's true, why are you so against cleaning up the writing, whittling down the page count, getting close to a 1 to 1 page vs. runtime, without making a single change to the story, plot, and theme? How could this be a bad thing?
And, as I asked earlier, at what point is it no longer acceptable? Ho many page sdo you have to rack up before you say, "Hey, wait a minute here...this is too damn long, let's see why."?
Finally, 1 more time about this Pro vs Non Pro scripts/reads. You continually say that all Pro scripts read differently than Non Pro scripts, are better written, are deeper, and are basically free of all errors.
At what point is a Pro separated from a Non Pro? When they sell their first script? When they sell their first big script? If it sells or not, does that really make them a better writer at that exact instant? Does that give them carte blanche to write all the unfilmable asides they want to, and because they're Pro and therefor, their script is a Pro script, it's OK?
It's just unreal to me how many people glam onto something that is deemed as "worthy", or great, or whatever by the masses, and all of sudden, they can do no wrong and it's downright "perfect".
I obviously disagree whole heartedly. I'm a perfectionist and I know that nothing is prefect. There's always room for improvement and even the best are flawed in many ways. That doesn't make them bad or anything of the sort, but you need to open your mind and admit mistakes and flaws when they're brought out.
I didn't say it was perfect, I didn't even say I liked the movie, Oh.. maybe I did, cause I didn't hate it. But I did say I liked the script, a lot. It was an easy read for me, for some reason, it hooked me and I couldn't put it down.
But maybe cause I am not seasoned.
Anyway.. should this have won an academy award (it did right?), I don't know, is this ageless and classic? Not really.
But Hollywood seems to be fickle and maybe because she (Portman) seemed and I use the word SEEMED to stretch here as an actress. But did she really? Who really knows what she is like in person and maybe this was easy for her.
I guess what I am trying to say... is for me, the scripts rocked, the film was Interesting, and especially since we are comparing them here, gonna like some parts and not others... like the laughing wall of art.. and those crazy cartoony eyeballs. FAIL!
I've dealt with everything you've raised. I've done my best to point out that character directions are not unfilmmable and that it is accepted practice that you can describe their personality when you introduce characters.
Orphans may be technically wrong. I've never heard anyone mention them outside of this site tbh,not even in a book, but this is a draft script and it does make a difference that it is so...there's not much point in having drafts if each one has to be technically perfect.
I can't say I care very much about them. They seem to be mainly an American thing, from the Chicago Manual of Style (which sounds like a good film!). Probably more important in a novel, and more important for typesetters than anything else.
The only orphans you'll get in a film are the ones that are the main characters when the stories are based on the Hero's Journey structure.
I know it's important to you, but I think it's fair to say that your editing background predisposes you to putting undue importance on very minor details like that.
You are correct to point them out, your relentless pursuit of them in your work and others is admirable, and we should all do the same but we would also be advised to pursue other areas even more relentlessly.
The pro thing is a debate we've had before. All I can say is that there tends to be a difference between the pro scripts I've read and the pre-pro ones...generally speaking. Some people are closer, some are further away.
I actually enjoy reading pro scripts. A lot of the time I can't even decipher what's going on in a pre-pro one, I find them incredibly hard going, and I've had enough within 20 pages. Everything is explained in dialogue. Scenes don't seem to flow from one another. Transitions are weak. Characters aren't defined. Not much evidence of visual storytelling.
The biggest difference is what I and Heretic have said...attention to theme. You say it's obvious, and maybe it is..but it's the difference between someone who knows how to tell a story and someone who doesn't. They know what's important and what isn't, and have something to impart. There's no wasted time on pointless characters, no weird deviations on side issues that have no pay off...and probably a hundred things besides.
You become a pro writer when you make your living from selling scripts. You hit pro level with a singular script at the point you write a pro level script...proof of that is when you sell it for "major" money.
We should stop these goddamn discussions and just write a fucking cunting script.
Let me worry about the theme and you can sort out all the widows and orphans to your heart's content.
There's a guy with $30M to burn who wants an action script.
Let's get it on.
Woah! I'm working on it, but I've learned that I will not sell my soul to the devil by overdoing what is overdone and I will enjoy my life while I'm learning.
I will not become Nina, and die trapped inside of a claustrophobic world without attending to other people and things that matter also.
OK, Rick, fair enough. You did respond to most of my points now and you even agreed, as much as you seem to not want to, on a few things. I appreciate that.
Back to the asides and unfilmables for a second.
In terms of character descriptions, character defining, and even character action/reactions, I'll agree that some "unfilmables" are fine and even work better than trying to work around using them.
"Nina's scared." "Nina's ashamed." "Nina's excited." - All are fine depending on how they're used. They don't take up extra space, and probably take up less, because they're so simple and "universal" things that they're immediately understood.
I'll never agree that introing a character, who's asleep and just waking up, by "telling" us her personality and demeanor, is acceptable, or the right way to go about it. As I've said a few times, it's both cheap and it's a cheat. Basically, it's the writer setting us up for what's to follow. If that is indeed her personality, we should be able to pick up on that a few minutes in, based on her actions, reactions, and dialogue. It just isn't fair to incorporate this novelistic approach to a script, as we cannot see any back story, nor can we read her mind.
And, let's go back to the aside about the shoes hanging in Nina's room. There are many examples of this throughout this script, and again, I cannot agree that it's either acceptable or correct.
In this example, we have our writer telling us why the "shot" is important, just in case we don't get it from the actual words. To go over the top to try and stress my point, imagine a SUPER being flashed on the screen, as this scene plays on film, to make sure all the viewers understand it's relevance.
And let's also understand that not every viewer will associate the meaning of the fact that Nina has been dancing since she was a child, based on seeing a bunch of ballet shoes of all sizes, stapled to her ceiling.
But then again, who really cares about this fact? As far as I'm concerned it goes without saying that most professional dancers, and probably especially ballet dancers, have been doing this their entire life, as the commitment is pretty much required.
So, let's do an over the top example that pretty much relates to what we have here and see what your thoughts are.
We've got a horror movie about a guy who flips out after his wife and son die, and goes on a killing spree.
We're in his house and are just getting to meet him.
"A pair of eyes open. They belong to MARK, late 40's. Although inviting and honest, these eyes hide the madman that he has become.
A picture on the nightstand shows Mark with a high powered rifle, holding up the head of a dead TWELVE POINT BUCK, which testifies to the fact that he is an avid hunter.
Another picture shows Mark with his wife, MARGIE, and son, CLYDE, in happier times, and we see that he was a loving father and husband."
You see what I'm trying to say here, guys and gals? Chris made a good point about not knowing the level of your readers, but most things should be crystal clear when it comes to this stuff and adding writer asides not only isn't necessary, it's irritating and wastes lines.
I'll never agree that introing a character, who's asleep and just waking up, by "telling" us her personality and demeanor, is acceptable, or the right way to go about it. As I've said a few times, it's both cheap and it's a cheat. Basically, it's the writer setting us up for what's to follow. If that is indeed her personality, we should be able to pick up on that a few minutes in, based on her actions, reactions, and dialogue. It just isn't fair to incorporate this novelistic approach to a script, as we cannot see any back story, nor can we read her mind.
"They belong to the same dancer, NINA. Self-conscious and hungry for approval, Nina hides her insecurity behind a sweet, likeable facade."
A director and film crew, I think, would see this is a challenge. The actor certainly would.
The job falls mainly to Ms. Portman. Can she manage to exude an air of insecurity while maintaining a sweet, likeable facade? Lots of eye work there, for an actor with a naturally "sweet" face.
But the director, DP, art, and makeup are all thinking about it too. Art's wondering if they can sneak a mirror into the frame, or barring that, an object or painting that represents the idea of weakness behind a sweet facade; wondering where they can put lipstick or something else which suggests a hunger for approval. Makeup's thinking that they're going to push the makeup a bit so that we're a little bit more aware of it -- makeup naturally evokes the idea of facade -- and to increase the "sweet" appearance. The DP's brushing up on lighting in 50s noir to see how people have lit before to achieve the idea of insecurity and inner turmoil. The director's looking at storyboards and notes, considering how the last scene was storyboarded and how its transition to this one might be used to enhance the idea of insecurity, considering colour work he might want to associate with Nina, or with insecurity, planning his frame to convey Nina's relative power in the scene (maybe he's thinking, for example, that we should be above her eye level so we have power over her, and maybe some extra headroom to contribute to that, maybe also placing her in center frame, which tends to make Western audiences uncomfortable...just examples).
And at the end when the movie comes out, maybe they have managed to convey all that unfilmable stuff to the audience.
You have very strong opinions, and that's fine. I can't put a gun against your headand make you change your mind, all I can do is point some things out and give a different opinion, mainly for the benefit of others.
It is an accepted, and in some circles, an expected, practice to introduce a character's personality when we first meet them. The rationale is that you get a quick, dirty, low down on who they are that tells you how you are supposed to read and understand their character/dialogue. It is for the sake of clarity and so people don't have to read 30 or 40 pages to get a grasp on who or what the character is.
It is not incorrect to do it.
As for the shoes, you're now bringing what the audience will get from it. If you think they're too dumb to get visual clues like that, fine, don't use them, but they are the very basis of visual story-telling...how to create understanding of people and their environment wihtout having to explain everything.
It's really good writing. Not only does it show the length of time she's been dancing, it shows how obsessive and ordered her nature is, it also shows that she's been stuck in that same room all her life. All these crucial little details about the character being built up. It's excellent writing, it really is. It's exactly what screenwriters (writers who write for the SCREEN) should be doing.
And you're right..it's throughout the script! The writer is constantly reinforcing the theme, the characters, the story with visual motifs. It's a real masterclass in visual writing. It's easy to do, it's obvious...but very few pre-pro's write in such a way.
A lot of these kind of things work on a subconscious level as well. People understand them in ways that they perhaps couldn't relate, but nonetheless effect them.
Your example isn't worth getting into, because it's not doing what the writer does here. For instance, your buck example is a singular one...if you had ten pictures, then it would be acceptable.
That being said, it does perhaps provide a useful point of reference if you really want me to get into the differences.
Rick, I am all for visual writing. I hope you know that.
The point that you continually overlook is the aside(s) from the writer, not the visual itself.
The visual of the shoes is great. The aside, "they testify to how long she has been a ballet dancer" is what I am against. It is completely unnecessary. It wastes a line here. This kind of thing should not be done in a Spec screenplay.
If the visual itself isn't strong enough, or clear enough to get the point across, maybe it shouldn't be used at all. And, I'm not suggesting that either.
In my over the top example, let's say there are numerous pictures of him in hunting shots, or in loving family moment shots. That/those in itself should get the point across, and the goofy asides I threw in, were to show how unnecessary such asides are, in general.
That is the point I'm trying to stress. That is what I'm trying to debate, because the more examples of these throughout a script, the more bloated the script becomes, and there has to be a point when you say and "see" that enough is enough, and you realize what the culprit actually is.
You guys don't seem to think it's an issue here at 129 pages, which astounds me. What if it was 149 pages? Would that be a clue that there are problems with the writing? How about 169 pages for a film that will run for an hour and 45 minutes?
Where do you draw the line and when do you agree that these literary devices can be a problem for a Spec script and do not transfer to film?
I actually see your point Blue about the asides, even though I do like them, it helps the script flow... but if it is going to "flow" onto 149 pages, then yes, that is too much!!
Maybe they can cut the asides down a little... instead of "they testify to how long she has been a ballet dancer" - She has been in this room and a dancer for along time... maybe a couple actions lines could have been combined by these asides.
maybe if they were used less and more effectively it wouldn't be a problem.
I am just saying I get what you are saying. Both of you make such valid observations!
Hey dmc, funny, how you call me "blue". That's simply a color associated with the number of posts a member has. I'm Jeff.
Not to be argumentative here but my entire point is that these aides add page length, so the last thing you'd want to do is add more lines with description.
The whole point is that a picture can tell a thousand words, so your visual writing should convey what it's supposed to, without you adding asides as to what the meaning of the visual is.
I know exactly what you mean.. I do think that being able to describe something visually should be enough.. I wish I were better at it and I hope it come with practice!
It's really hard... but I think in a script that got that kind of $$$ it should have been pretty tight... but I also think it was really great read.
So I am kind of like.. well, it sold! So they must have done something right.. or it was the story, hook or whatever that sold it.
I thought the shoe description was one of the most powerful I've ever read in a script. In one line, we know who this girl is. I have not seen the movie, and only read the first 10 or so pages of the script. But I see a girl who has not grown up or moved on from her girlish dreams. That she keeps all these on the wall indicates a woman of profound insecurity, a person who has compartmentalized aspects of her life as a self defense mechanism. I see her as someone who lives largely in a reality of her own making, a castle with fragile walls.
(Rick, in some ways she's like the girl from the doll script you have)
So the question is would I have got that just from a physical description of her room, without the added line to explain it. And I don't know. I might have. I certainly would have got it if I saw it in film. I think this is an example of where rules are meant to be broken if you pick your moments. An image with that much power, that is so important in setting up the script, can't be taken for granted. I think the writer is wise to take the extra line to make sure the reader gets it.
If the whole script is like this, and it adds 20 pages, then that's a problem. But in regards to this one line, it left a lasting image in my mind. I don't trust that I would have picked it up without the help. Sometimes I read things like physical descriptions of a room pretty fast, skip to the dialogue. I might not be the only one in the world to do that, so it's probably good the writer accounts for people like me.
I agree with Jeff there should not be many of these.
The visual of the shoes is great. The aside, "they testify to how long she has been a ballet dancer" is what I am against.
But the reader might come to all kinds of conclusions in that scene if it weren't written. Yes, they might think the obvious, but they might not. They might think the shoes are merely a collection. I once knew a girl who had horse pictures plastered all over the place.
Also, the actor can read that and get a quick look at who they are supposed to be. It's clear, not like where I have problems in my writing-- diverging all over the map and out of focus.
OMG. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about the line or why anyone cares because the director is just going to butcher and chop up the entire screenplay and story into coleslaw. Did you guys not pick up on that?
ERICA's hair is in a bun with chop sticks in it. or ERICA's hair is in a bun - and ERICA is propped on a cane.
Whatever. Doesn't matter.
Ya'll need to quit being so anal. This silly sh!t isn't fundamental to the story.
It's in. It's out. Who cares. Doesn't matter.
Same for all the other goofy sh!t ya'll are arguing over.
Put it in your screenplay to fluff it up. Don't put it in to slim it down.
When I'm going out on a date I really, really, don't give a flying fig if my wife or girlfriend's earrings coordinate with her general motif. I just want a good doinking later. I don't care if her bra matches her panties. I just want 'em both on the ground. I don't care if her hair is in a bun or not. I don't plan on spending much time up there.
Directors don't care about none of this sh!t. We see it time and time again.
How many [expletive] differences are there from script to screen? A bazillion! Why? I dunno?! Stuff happens!
Heretic, I missed that part completey! Maybe it does matter. Whoops! LOL
Ray, please I am so not trying to be a smartAss here, and I do know how important STORY is, but if it is all about story and not how it is written, then why is it so damn hard to write a screenplay.
I have written only a couple, I am working on my 3rd, (first to scrapped). But this one is good, the story is good, I am just now up to my incident before act 2 and it is HARD. It is hard to find the right words.
Since they rip it up, then why can't they be a little more lenient with the scripts then. Why do some make it and some get tossed - even if the story is good.
It is too confusing really. So now I am just trying to get thru this first draft, then I will try to tighten it up and make it readable and interersting but that is the hardest part.
The link to the podcast is in my post above (the bold sentence is the link). They don't really say anything about the importance or lack thereof of her father in the final version; they just talk about it a bit, which may or may not affect your opinion at all!
Ray, please I am so not trying to be a smartAss here, and I do know how important STORY is, but if it is all about story and not how it is written, then why is it so damn hard to write a screenplay.
Since they rip it up, then why can't they be a little more lenient with the scripts then. Why do some make it and some get tossed - even if the story is good.
We're cool. It's hard because we still have to demonstrate a minimum industry proficiency, and that's leaps and bounds above some of the novels in screenplay pseudo-format on a doc file routinely submitted here.
Considerably more difficult.
The producers and directors who actually pony up the thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions of dollars feel entitled to nudge stuff around at their discretion because... it's their money.
Film's don't just waft into the theater like FM radio.
Even if you're filming your own short, it don't take much to blow a few hundred dollars just on props and costumes. Probably gotta feed people, too. Might oughtta step up from a one man show to a two man camera&audio team. Who's paying to incentivize everyone to show up on time and prepared?
Watch enough behind the scenes and director/producer commentary and you'll eventually pick up on just how "high" writers rate in the grand scheme of the industry, studio or indie.
Story selection is largely based on budget and upon talent resource pool. First, any director without a bucket load of his own stories to pursue production of is suspect. Second, since they're shopping for someone else's story they gotta be mindful of what they can and can't do. Third, us home gamers writing pie-in-the-sky stories are shooting bullets to hit bullets of the few director/producers that haven't even got a bucket of their own ideas.
That's some pretty ugly looking math there.
Even if a director/producer taps you on the shoulder to write something for them, as in the case of Heyman by Aronofsky, you can plainly see the Director still changed all but the fundamentals of the story around.
Write. Write well. Be cool about it. Try to make a story someone else might wanna enjoy. Understand that someone else's $1,000,000 to invest low-budget budget wipes our $0 invested creativity off the map.
I hear ya. I am willing to let someone rape and plunder it if they pay me! Heck, I will just figure out another clever idea! LOL
"bounds above some of the novels in screenplay pseudo-format" That is funny and exactly what I am trying to avoid!
As soon as I get this done, I will hopefully post here for review. I am giving myself until October, but I might get it done before that, I have been on fire~!
The whole interview is quite interesting, but at the time mentioned above, Mark Heyman talks about theme.
At around 50:00 Heyman would appear to confirm my statements about "reality" and subjective perspective to some point.
And DMC, they talk about her dad at 1:03:00
Thank you so much for bringing this in. I've listened to just over the 50 mark and it's lovely. When he's asked whether we should view it as reality or dream, his answer is:
Sure, if you want to.
And
It's all real and not real because it's through Nina's eyes that we see it.
I'll finish listening tomorrow. Loved the words about writer's block. Whether that is real or unreal is probably too both real and unreal depending upon what you think. Also, the advice to have small goals daily is excellent. In general, for anything, that is best.
dmc, I'm the last person you want to ask those kinds of questions to, because I don't believe in them, nor do I care where they are. I just don't work like that...I don't write like that, and I don't watch movies like that.
Ray, Rick, of Chris can easily answer these questions for you.
IMO, these things are all natural progressions in story telling and don't need to be forced, shoe horned in, or even worried about.
Guess that's one of many reasons I appear to be a rebel.
Do not trust in "screenplay structure". The teachings of Aristotle and the observations of Joseph Campbell have been bastardized by hacks who think that creative vision can be achieved solely through a logically applied proven system. This is false. Syd Field can f*** himself. We write myth, we don't build it from blueprints.
Dreamscale, thanks and I am glad you got the play on your name. To answer, I enjoyed the script - I couldn't put it down. The movie was not as gripping to me, and the ending I think was spoiled by the script so I knew it was coming..
Ray, thanks I am gonna go check those out later! Thanks!!
Heretic... yep, S. Fields is the one I have been learning/reading about! 3 act structure, plot points, pardigms, etc. I think I have to learn before I can poo poo it right? I have seen so many so far that I can see it as plain as day!!!
I will check out your link later!!!
This thread might have gone all over the map, but I have enjoyed it so much! Probably I haven't contributed much, but thanks for your patience so far~
Alright, I've listened to the interview with the writers that Heretic posted.
The first thing that I can appreciate is the creative process at work in so many aspects of development. Everything happened over a long exciting haul where every element was given a chance to be questioned and changed. This is the kind of flexibility that I admire. Especially to hear about lucky accidents, shots that couldn't have been done better if they had been planned. This is what excites me so. It's living breathing art that transcends all formula. It's like this wonderful level of faith where the love of the craft surpasses understanding. It's humans being and not just doing. That's the difference between just outlining and working it after that phase, indeed, many phases.
It's interesting to note the importance of outlining and I would think that for many it's a critical element. Not that those outlines aren't being reworked, but I think it helps the writer really get to know their story because that is the be all and end all of it all after all. It sounds so simple, but it's the hardest thing of all and brilliance really is the ability to reduce something down into its simplest form. After that, then you can start building it up again and working with all of the details until nothing is extraneous.
What I loved too was learning that many ballerinas are very quiet, hence, the lack of dialogue on Nina's part. Interesting too, actions really do speak louder than words and when she bites Thomas or Yevna or whoever you want to call him, that spoke louder than anything. In the script that I read, she only slaps him. I wonder how that change came about.
Anyways, even though I'm way on the outside, I do know internally that film making is all about the process of distillation. That's actually the part I really am interested in. All of the evolutions and revelations that you make in the discovery process.
I don't know if they intended it, but when I think of the padding that she lands on at her death, I think of the "padded room" designed to protect, designed to confine.
Cool insight, Sandra! Never thought about the padding/mattresses that way.
Here are some ideas for discussion questions.
1. What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict? How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told? Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract? Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?
2. Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way. Is Nina the main antagonist? Or is Lily? Yevna? Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?
3. What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script? What one scene, character, or element would you put in?
4. When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment?
5. Would this story work in any place, time, and environment? Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman? Why or why not? Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story? Why or why not?
1. What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict? How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told? Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract? Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?
First of all, is Nina a Protag or an Antag? Or both?
As the story plays out, I think Nina is definitely our Protag, but in reality, she's her own Antag, so IMO, she's both.
It affects the way the story is told in every way, as you correctly pointed out, she's in every scene, and is really, the only one we care for, root for, and fear for. Th entire story is told through her perspective and even "eyes". Others actions all directly impact her, and her alone.
For me, this gives this the very small feel I keep mentioning.
The small cast and minimal locations only add to this feel for me.
Cool insight, Sandra! Never thought about the padding/mattresses that way.
Here are some ideas for discussion questions.
1. What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict? How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told? Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator (Nina is in every scene and we generally seem to share her point of view, seeing only what she sees) add to this, or detract? Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?
2. Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way. Is Nina the main antagonist? Or is Lily? Yevna? Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?
3. What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script? What one scene, character, or element would you put in?
4. When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment?
5. Would this story work in any place, time, and environment? Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman? Why or why not? Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story? Why or why not?
I'm going to tackle #1 first.
This is a story very much about obsession and single-mindedness as much as it is about anything else you might care to name and of course there's a lot.
Within this obsession, lying together with it is its companion: perfection. A very dangerous combination in their extreme forms even in a person who is apparently completely in the normal sphere. Nina of course is not even close. Her world has been completely framed by the narrow world of ballet. From her apartment to the subway, to the rehearsal space. That's it. ...
What can this script teach us about "protagonist versus self" type of conflict?
Well, what's happening on the outside mirrors what's happening on the inside for one. For example:
Nina's circumstances are a product of everything she was molded into. She's got the genetics and dreams of her mother. She's got the isolated way of living and thinking. She has no real friends. She has no friends that live a different life outside of the theatre. Because of the narrow scope of her existence, she simply doesn't have the mental ability to do or think anything different. From that respect she is truly very much a child. The exterior of her room is purely a mirror of her mental state, much like a messy room mirrors either a person who is too involved in other things to care, or perhaps they're highly unorganized, or they're severly depressed etc... all kinds of reasons there, but truly, the exterior does mirror the interior.
This is a known fact in reality not only movies. Our choices, all of our choices make up the characters we are. Everything from our attraction to certain types of environments, people-- or the opposite, desire for isolation, to the cover we desire to put on our bed. This movie shows the character versus themselves through the people and things that surround them (Nina).
And really, we can see that she has no choice in the matter. It's completely beyond her to think anything else. She really literally would need a kind of fairy godmother to come and say, "Hey, listen. You need to lighten up. Have a good time. Forget all this about transcendence. You're taking this all too seriously and its costing you."
I'm taking the perspective that one way to show self vs. self (because you can't literally break yourself into two people) is to show the obstacles to the person and that's what this movie did with the people surrounding Nina. They were all obstacles for her and the greatest of them all was her double, or dark side that she was afraid to unleash.
If we want to consider how the story's telling is affected by this kind of conflict, I think the first thing that we're going to have is a lot of reaction shots because it's a story about perception. Unlike some kind of hero movie, it's not about getting something that's tangible. It's more about "getting out" of something that's not even real in the first place. Does that really amount to a freakin' load of sense, Sandra?
The unreliable POV is perfect for this.
And finally:
The small number of characters and locations are what this is about. This isn't a movie about Nina getting a call from her Grandpa, (if she has one) and having the opportunity to stay at his farm to get away from New York for the summer. It's not about anything but the small world she lives in; so what better way to show this than with few characters and locations.
1 This is the toughest question. I don’t know, but I would have to say that artists are self-absorbed even when they are not mentally ill to Nina’s extent. But to “get into her head” we needed to be there, along for the rid with her.
2. Yes, Nina for sure is her own worst enemy IMHO, as is the case with most phychosis. I think that every character was necessary. Was Erika really necessary? I mean really? Nina could have been a socially inept, loaner without a soul in the world and still been as pathetic if not more so 3. I would have taken out that crazy art room. I would have left in the sex scene with the mirror! LOL
4. Not important.. we cannot teach the audience all about horse racing (for instance) but a general over view is good. I don’t want a lesson when I see a movie, I want to be entertained.
5. This movie had to be about ballet as it centered so much on the ballet of the swan. There could be no other or it would be completely different movie, with a different story, same plot maybe but different story.
Check it out, I was brave and tried to answer all! See what some reisling will do!!!
1 2. Yes, Nina for sure is her own worst enemy IMHO, as is the case with most phychosis. I think that every character was necessary. Was Erika really necessary? I mean really? Nina could have been a socially inept, loaner without a soul in the world and still been as pathetic if not more so
I disagree here, sorry, dmc. I don't think Nina was pathetic. To me, pathetic denotes a kind of inadequacy and apathy. She however was willing to sacrifice everything she had to get to her perceived perfection.
Was Erika really necessary?
Of course. She's her mother! She woudn't have been born without her. She wouldn't be in the ballet if it weren't for her. Yada-yada-yada on it goes.
I think it was Blake that said the transition of Act Two to Act Three is when the protagonist dies and is reborn as someone new. Something like that, anyway. What if there was a rebirth, but the old self did not die? So there is a split. Is that what happened here? I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like the Third Act was a battle between her old self and the new one trying to be born.
I guess that sounds crazy.
But Sandra, your post sounds brilliant! Very interesting observation. Especially the part about her room reflecting her inner state.
But everyone has a mother and we don't have to see them in the movie as a part!!!!
I am just saying that she served to make Nina look weaker, and also to make her look like she is trying to get stronger... when she says she is moving, which never happens...
I think it could have been done without her actually, maybe more strongly.
I think it was Blake that said the transition of Act Two to Act Three is when the protagonist dies and is reborn as someone new. Something like that, anyway. What if there was a rebirth, but the old self did not die? So there is a split. Is that what happened here? I haven't read it yet, but it sounds like the Third Act was a battle between her old self and the new one trying to be born.
I guess that sounds crazy.
But Sandra, your post sounds brilliant! Very interesting observation. Especially the part about her room reflecting her inner state.
This brilliance was on the part of the writers and everyone involved. They just kept upping the importance of everything and brought it all into frame. Thank you though, Kevin.
But everyone has a mother and we don't have to see them in the movie as a part!!!!
I am just saying that she served to make Nina look weaker, and also to make her look like she is trying to get stronger... when she says she is moving, which never happens...
I think it could have been done without her actually, maybe more strongly.
You are correct that everyone has a mother and not every story needs her. That is absolutely correct. This one however-- this particular story needed her. In the script that both you and I read however, she was much more flat than in the movie. In my estimation anyway.
1. What can this script teach us about "protagonist vs. self" conflict? - How does centering a script around such a conflict affect the way the story is told? - Does the unreliable "first-person"-style narrator... add to this, or detract? - Does the small number of characters and locations add to this, or detract?
Kinda shotgunned those in there, eh? Cool. Protag v. Self is person v. self type of conflict, often this parallels some external person v. some externality: resolve the inner conflict to resolve the outer.
Doing it this way is a very specific choice for the screenwriter to pursue. Most creature features have little to no mamby-pamby "internal conflict" goobledy-gok! People are dying, dammit! RUN! However, these personal drama and tragedy stories are replete with internal strife. The very nature of the self v. self conflict construct forces the story into certain parameters that can just be skipped in the absence of internal conflict.
Unreliable self v. self adds complexity to the story. So, if this is going to be your primary antag it'll likely come at the time and attention expense of other characters or situation. We ain't writing novels unlimited. We got 90 to 110 minutes to tell what we gotta tell, not all the personal baggage of everyone that walks in front of the camera. (Odds are, the more personal baggage someone has the exponentially less interesting any of it becomes).
Small cast is likely crucial to defining the optimal depth of a protag's self deficiencies. Seems like there is a zero-sum inverse relationship. If primary protag occupies 50% of the story, then the remainder needs to be divided amongst all characters secondary to him/her. Every additional secondary character added comes at the lines-of-development expense of the others, so budget your lines accordingly.
2. Almost every character in the script serves as a supporting antagonist in some way. Is Nina the main antagonist? Or is Lily? Yevna? Are there any antagonistic characters that are unnecessary?
YEVNA serves as the principle antag. Although not an classic Dr. Evil sort of bad guy, he exists in a common position of decision making power which the viewing public loves to visualize as their own evil supervisor/boss/manager. F#ckit. The guy's in a position of responsibility. He's gotta make decisions for the company or else the donor cash dries up and they're all out of a job. Cut the prick some slack.
LILY to me is a pretty interesting cog in the wheel. Nowhere in the screenplay nor film is she overtly gunning for NINA's spot. SURE! if YEVNA asks them to be SQ they'd be tickled, but... Frankly, no one is knifing anyone to be Swan Queen. They all just pretty much go with it.
ERICA's the only real impediment. But with her own mental health issues it's kinda hard to point the finger of blame at her and say "Baaaaaad mother!". Sh!t. Girl just needs some Zoloft or Prozac or something. "Welcome to the twenty-first century, Mom!"
And this all kinda dances around the one element glaringly omitted from the entire story: compassion. Every character around NINA sees her f#cked up mental health issues but not a d@mn soul says "Hey, maybe yelling at you and beating you like a dog doesn't push you towards what YEVNA wants to see in the Black Swan. Maybe we all need to go out together and have some drinks, play a few games of Uno or Pictionary after practice. Who wants to order a cup of noodles and we'll split it twenty ways?!" How about ERICA says something effing nice without any backhanded compliments? How about YEVNA taking her out for ice skating or horse drawn carriage ride around the park, no strings attached? (That'd be some alternative leadership HR probably wouldn't sh!t kittens over). How about LILY quit telling her to lighten up alllll the GD time? How about giving her a Cymbalta instead of an Ecstasy? How about the COSTUMER keep her GD comments to herself like a effing professional?
Nope. None of that.
To me, the destauration of thoughtful compassion and sensible employee management are what make this story... not like real life, which doesn't entertain sh!t.
3. What one scene, character, or element would you take out of this script? What one scene, character, or element would you put in?
Pirate's Code: Script's a guideline, more like suggestions than actual rule book.
I've seen enough director/producer/actor/writer commentaries to believe in any fantasy "The Holy Screenplay shall not be deviated from"! Pfft! Ha! Grow up, Pee Wee. The story needs to be fundamentally compelling enough for someone to spend several, if not many, millions of dollars to produce it. Money. Real money. You wanna get paid in real money? Then the whole kit-and-kaboodle is gonna cost real money for production alone. And then there's P&A, promotion and advertising, and distribution.
How much money are you spending on your screenplay? Yeah.
4. When writing a film set in a specific environment (in this case, a ballet company), to what extent is it important to "teach" the audience about that specific environment?
This is exactly where I get into trouble. If I expect the audience to bring a lot to the table I get slammed for being too cryptic and no one know WTH I'm yammering about. ("What's that critter? What's a APC? I don't know my Glock from my Beretta. Waaa Waa Waa"). If I spoon feed 'em I get slammed for too much exposition. And you know what? IT DOESN"T BLINKIN' MATTER, 'CAUS THE DIRECTOR IS GONNA TURN IT INTO COLE SLAW!
5. Would this story work in any place, time, and environment? Does it have to be about ballet, or in America, or about a woman? Why or why not? Should all scripts be universal in that changing place, time, or environment doesn't really affect the story? Why or why not?
H#ll no, it's not specific to ballet.
- Fireman PHIL loves the trucks, the sirens, the gear, the camraderie, but is scared sh!tless of NOT finding the person in the burning house. Consequently he balks at running into any burning building and mans the trucks.
- Policeman PETE has made a career advancing through the ranks from flatfoot to detective, but can't get what he wants the most: to pass the bar exam. Test anxiety paralyzes him, and everyone's pity-fueled encouragement only makes it worse.
- Actress ANGIE is the biggest paid Hollywood star as the Pinnacle of Purity. She's the goto girl for "Goodliness!" But her starlet days fade as her crows feet deepen. This gig can't last forever and she knows it. And the one thing she wants the most, to stand on the other side of the camera as director, is denied her due to ghost of a single casting couch past!
See? I can do this sh!t all night.
- Animal trainer with an embarrassing bestiality fetish. - Podiatrist that can't stop thinking of hair care. - Circus clowns that want to start their own law firm.
Anything. Just find a conflict and grind it against against a mental health issue you and I would say "Okay" to and move on. but, noooo! Not your protag. Protag's gotta overthink the bejeezus out of the fantastically mundane.
To me, the destauration of thoughtful compassion and sensible employee management are what make this story... not like real life, which doesn't entertain sh!t.
And that must be true in a lot of circles because sheeple flock to any kind of screen entertainment that satisfies them. They do not know how to entertain themselves.
People, on the other hand, are discriminating. They don't just read or watch anything. It's purposeful when they decide to invest time into something.
Ray, everything you said in the above post reads loud and clear for me. You have all your ducks in a row.
I still have to handle the next questions that Heretic so generously posed.
Really. Thank you so very much. Does anyone recognize the generosity here?
I am about to "hit the hay" but before I do, I came across a "holy shite moment".
We're all struggling to write and rewrite, I know. You can probably relate to this then-- when you find something you've written and you say, "I wrote that?!!!"
I'm bringing this up because in the interview that Heretic so generously supplied, we learn that although it's important to KNOW OUR STORY!!! We must give ourselves permission to let our story develop, morph, mutate, evolve-- any number of qualifiers you want to give it. But...
Always have the central story before you. Whatever it is at any given time. Sounds easy. Hard as Hell. With a capital "H". (Ray can do it in his sleep, I know... but he's a prodigy.)
So here goes:
(And you may ask: What's it got to do with Black Swan?")
Double U, T, Eff ... What's The Understudy got to do with Black Swan?
This is just some old piece of shite that I found lying around, but it shure's hell made me curious.
Qualifier: Novelesque
The Fire Lady Word 4,299
Roman appeared to be constricted for a moment. He was trying to explain magic and then found himself in a scientific quandary. There was a knock at the door and Leanne Wallace, the house attendant entered with a rolling cart carrying a couple of carafes filled with hot coffee, trays of assorted sandwiches, potato chips, olives, pickles, and an array of rich dark chocolates in a shallow bowl displaying the squares, crescents and other interesting shapes all mounded neatly.
“Leanne, fabulous! Roman exclaimed delighted.
“Paul, this is Leanne. She does so much around here I lose track.”
“But you’re the best to work for I say. Very pleased I’m sure.” Leanne held out her hand to meet Paul’s. She gripped it with a sturdy grace and turned to the tray, explaining the kinds of sandwiches and that Philip Gallier the cook had tried something new with a curry paste, cream cheese and sun dried tomatoes.
“Extracts for coffee—here if you like. Anything else Sir?”
“More than enough dear, more than enough.” Leanne was out like the flitting of a bird, her word “enjoy” still hanging in the air as the door closed meekly.
“Kingly much?” Paul teased.
“You know, I tell them. "Don’t overdue, but I must say that I rather like not knowing what is coming from the kitchen next.”
Roman stood up and handed Paul a serve and they began heaping the interesting morsels on their plates and filling their cups with coffee.
“Well, let’s begin,” said Roman now with a mouthful of sandwich.
“Mmm…got to tell Philip this curry spread is good.” Paul was nodding with enormous satisfaction, humming the same sound.
“Now here I am, Roman, your brother and student. Ready to understand what can’t be explained.”
“That is just it, Paul. So settle yourself in for a bit of a lecture. It’s impossible to discuss magic without speaking of science and religion but here is the dilemma. Magic to science is foolish and to religion is evil.”
Paul crunched down on a pickle and drew up a handful of potato chips while Roman began to speak of the world and its age, about polar shifts and ancient nuclear wars and he put his plate aside for awhile to sip his coffee and just listen. He admired Roman for his depth and intensity. And while he reclined somewhat in the overstuffed chair, he wondered what his last life with Roman might have been, and now he couldn’t imagine how he’d lived this life so far without him.
He was interested now, in more than just the magic, but in Roman; in his soul’s hard edge, resolute and secure, demanding attention without effort, but by presence, magnetic and brimming with exuberance; and… daring to be childish, to click his tongue or make a face, to dance a pirouette or bow as on stage.
Yes..
He’d seen it that first night at the cemetery. Among the dead, he danced, and he stumbled and fell, holding safe his bottle of whiskey. He could be serious but he could be wild and romantic, impishly full of delight, or sullen. Roman was a man of action and even in composure, or with subtle means; while without gesture, or sound, he would still be impressing something on the air around him; by virtue of silence, of holding the dead air, filled with concentration, and lifting it up like a god—still and reverent—and so that in between his declamatory speeches, the stillness would capture one like a whisper, a secret.
But if he laughed, or played...
...it must have been for relief-- from the edge which compelled him; and, after he was sufficiently drained, something collusive would invariably drift in the wake of all the elaborate form and voice, as if benevolence were competing with some other dark splinter in his soul...
...as if he were beholden to repentance, his intensity thick as black through a fog. There was something else too. Roman was more than loud and formidable, he was gentle and contrite. And Paul tried to understand this new brother of his and to understand what it meant to be involved in causality.
“…so how does magic fit with science or religion? Quite honestly it defies both for both are strangled by orthodoxy. There are those scientists who believe in Uniformitarianism. In its most basic sense, its name describes it. The idea of geological consequences coming gradually over time. Mountains slowly lifting out of the sea bringing to great heights what once existed on the sea floor. The concepts of erosion by wind and water over long periods of time—the idea that all of the changes come out of the same processes that have always existed and so we should be able to infer today, by what happened in the past—or put another way, the events that shaped the earth yesterday-- are the same as today.
It’s often been attributed to James Hutton in the 18th century, but the actual name was coined by William Whewell who was encapsulating Hutton’s sense of natural order throughout time and Charles Lyell’s views of that with respect to its rates and changes. It’s interesting to note that William who was a great man of science opposed Darwin’s theory of evolution and in 1845 published a book called:
Indications of the Creator.
He was the one who actually created the words:
Scientist
and
Physicist ...
From a similar word with “ist”—ar—tist.” Roman enunciated while tossing his hands forward like a conductor calling halt. “And so thereby natural philosophers became scientists. But I’m digressing here. I want to make the point though that just because certain fundamental ideas often overlap with evolutionism, they are not one and the same. And Unformatarianism in its strictest sense rejects catastrophes. For instance, Lyell had went further with the idea and considered more than just geology but also biology—how changing environments affected species and the faunal character of an area. He knew that environments could play a role in extinctions. But he rejected the idea of progressive change throughout time. So, although he was a gradualist, he wasn’t a progressionist. But the idea of uniformity—the idea implies consistency even as it relates to change. It has its kinks.
Roman stopped to pour more coffee and turned on the lights as the sky was growing dark and the day, a memory.
***
As I re-read this, I realize that it's not clear that Paul is arriving at the door. and that he is Roman's brother.
The dynamics are highly important because they are the basis for everything else that will take place.
***Back to Black Swan:
THE FUNNELING PROCESS
Black Swan very muchly began as The Understudy.
It morphed into something that was wilder than the original dream/s.
THIEF, conceived by Michael Cornetto, and developed by many individuals on Simplyscripts, I believe is the same kind of animal...
Gary Grademan has spent countless hours lending his solid hand. Also, there are others, where, work and day-to-day gets in the way and suffocates development. Point is though...
Many of us working on the project still feel its charm. We haven't given up. That's important.
In Hebrew, the word for faith is:
Emuna.
To bring this back around to Black Swan, which is the topic of this thread obviously-- dah!!!
I believe that the success doesn't have to do with skill and lucky accidents in filming and all of that. I believe it has to do with the people involved and the faith they expressed in their day-to-day lives.
That's what I admire and that's what I hope to re-construct in my life and the people around me.
Sandra, whatever your reason was for adding that bit of story about Roman and Paul -- I thank you. I've said it before, you are a gifted, brilliant writer. Something I've learned from you is the fearlessness you show when a thought occurs to you, you let it pour out. Please always do that, as far as I can tell, this is a safe place for it. I look forward to reading more of the story about Roman, someday. Cathy
I believe that the success doesn't have to do with skill and lucky accidents in filming and all of that. I believe it has to do with the people involved and the faith they expressed in their day-to-day lives.
Sandra, whatever your reason was for adding that bit of story about Roman and Paul -- I thank you. I've said it before, you are a gifted, brilliant writer. Something I've learned from you is the fearlessness you show when a thought occurs to you, you let it pour out. Please always do that, as far as I can tell, this is a safe place for it. I look forward to reading more of the story about Roman, someday. Cathy
Thank you cm and dmc! I know that a lot of people lately I've heard feel like they're in a slump and if that's the case, just write anyways even if it feels totally uneventful. Then, later you can come back to things you'd long forgotten and it might be just the thing you need at that time.
In The Black Swan interview they talk about setting small goals. Like today is a theme day. I'm going to concentrate on that alone. This kind of thing can help a lot because it takes the unmanageable down to a manageable level.
I'm slow, I know....but I finally watched the film. I'm tired and I'm celebrating something today so I'll be brief.
IMO, the script was better than the film. The film was good, but not fantastic. Maybe I would have thought differently if I had not read the script first. That happens to me a lot of the time. I almost always prefer the script over the film. Some of the visuals obviously worked better in the film than the script, but some of the story lost its depth in the film. For example the part with Beth. That was much more powerful and important in the script. In the film, I felt it was almost non existent and didn't matter.
I had a hard time putting the script down. I didn't feel the same with the film. They were both good though and like Rick has pointed out, it really contains "everything" as far as human and our emotions and drives go. Insanity, obsession, love and so on. Great script to be discussed for sure. Sorry I couldn't devote more time to it. I thought I would, but then a whole bunch of things started happening that occupied my thoughts.
Thanks everyone for taking part though! Great discussion!
Passion and utter nonsense in equal measure on this thread.
Chris' analysis was pretty spot on - and with all respect, it's quite clear that his analysis comes from an actual filmmaker and not someone masquerading as a master of writing.
All this nonsense about script technicalities is getting quite tiresome. The notion of a rigid script/sticking to a page count is holding people back. For those starting out, writing a script is a case of getting a bit of grease on your elbows and learning from doing. It's not rocket science. Some here seem intent on being the 'specialists' that were mocked in the book Freakonomics.
It's patently obvious that a script is a blueprint, and in my view an unfilmmable is actually a matter of opinion. The example bandied about here is filmmable - obviously so. Also, this insistence that the writer is the be all and end all is wrong. Plain and simple.
So it looks like this thing died on the vine, last weekend, huh?
That's what I thought, too! But thanks for bringing it up again, Jeff. Because some people might have been on holidays and they might like to check out this thread-- and the movie.
IMO, it wasn't a very good Script Club, sorry to say.
Maybe that was my fault for not taking as much part as I had planned. Something else came up. Actually several things. One of my daughters bought her first house in April. She moved in in late May. In July it flooded! The minot ND flood. She also got engaged. And we started planning the shoot of Old Wounds for 7/23. Toss in a few doctors visits, one funeral and a business that's super busy. Seriously, 2011 has been a bizarre and eventful (good and bad) year.
And I've got some long irons in the fire that might take me some more time to circle back to this screenplay discussion.
My (intended) future contributions will more toward the nuts and bolts "story construct" aspect of this screenplay and how what I've observed in this I and others can apply to other writing projects.
However, I owe Brett a read and critique on his zombie screenplay first, so don't hold your breath and don't be "WTH?" when I drag this thread back up in another couple weeks, either, please. Gracias!
Sad to say, if you're tapped out then that's your call.
Some people look at leftovers and plate scrapings and call it trash, while others see it as material for composting. And I can always make a gross science experiment with mold for my kids. Set it out on the back porch and see if the possums or raccoons get it first. I can assess portion control for future meals, as well as content.
What else can I do with one man's table trash... ? Hmm... ?
Regarding dialogue -- I thought mostly the dialogue in Black Swan was lifeless, half way through it occured to me that it could just have easily been a silent movie with occasional text postings of dialogue. Now, I saw Black Swan as a dvd so maybe the charmlessness of the dialogue was more obvious -- come to think of it, in theaters the sound quality is usually so terrible that dialogue is largely missed, anyway. Anyway, Black Swan is fading from my memory and I wonder if part of the reason is the lack of sparkling dialogue.
The movie has sort of faded from my memory as well, but I did still enjoy it and the script.
I don't think the dialogue stuck out to me as being lifeless. Maybe a bit minimalistic, but i think that sort of gives it the darker and a little bit of a European feel...which I prefer.
Regarding dialogue -- I thought mostly the dialogue in Black Swan was lifeless, half way through it occured to me that it could just have easily been a silent movie with occasional text postings of dialogue. Now, I saw Black Swan as a dvd so maybe the charmlessness of the dialogue was more obvious -- come to think of it, in theaters the sound quality is usually so terrible that dialogue is largely missed, anyway. Anyway, Black Swan is fading from my memory and I wonder if part of the reason is the lack of sparkling dialogue.
I had learned from the interview that heretic posted that the research done proved ballerinas to be very non-verbal. I cannot confirm this, but it does make sense because they act out their feelings largely through their dance. Of course there are always exceptions, but here's the interview again for those who can't make it through the deep of this thread anymore. BTW, if you open with Google Chrome, it shouldn't do the loopidy-loop it does in Firefox.
Frogs. People. Planets. Ecosystems. Economies. Governments. History. Home construction. Screenplay format. Filmmaking process.
You name it and I've likely poked around some in that field. I specialize in generalizing.
I'm not so much interested in appreciating any one story as I am in understanding how SOME stories are constructed so that I may more easily template off of that to better build my own!
"This is a great sandwich!" "Great! How can I make one, too? What are the variables involved? Is yellow mustard as good as fancy? Will provolone substitute for American cheese?"
That sorta stuff.
"If the alligators increase their population by 5% how will that impact the snowy egret population?" "If this planet's atmosphere reflects light waves within this spectrum what elemental compositions can I determine?" "Is the 99.99% of missing dark matter in our universe on the other side of the expansion envelope consuming anti-time causing our universe of time and matter to expand?" "If I find out what B-actor is available can I tailor a marketable screenplay just for him?"
Okay - take this particular comment with a grain of salt - I haven't read the full script yet. And I'm a huge fan of the movie.
But having glanced at the first several pages, I'm struck by how much detail and writing go into each description...exactly the sort of thing that would be torn *apart* in any unknown script by most agents, and reviewers at SS.
(And that's coming from someone who has drastically streamlined her methods of description over the past few scripts.)
Interesting, how the rules go out the window for insiders.
Which is perhaps understandable, since they're playing from a different vantage point - ie: they already have people interested in reading their material and don't have to compete with 1000 other entries for a glance.
BTW - also took a quick look at the original scripts for Star Wars, a New Hope and Alien last night. (Two films that I also love.) Horrendous. *Way* too much description on the first. Choppy, inept dialogue and no descriptions on the second.
Kinda goes to show how much difference a director makes...
You must have engaged the services of one of those lenghty emails with empty promises that keep making their way to my junk email. Thaks for super sizing me.
Great chart, Ray! This is going up on the wall where I can see it everyday!
Rockin'!
Quoted from wonkavite
But having glanced at the first several pages, I'm struck by how much detail and writing go into each description...exactly the sort of thing that would be torn *apart* in any unknown script by most agents, and reviewers at SS.
Good morning, Janet!
Yep.
- Darren Aronofsky wanted to film an unspecified story about ballet and ballerinas from years ago. - Independently, Andres Heinz had written a spec screenplay titled THE UNDERSTUDY about an actor's developing delusions about his dark/evil understudy. - Aronofsky requested his director of development Mark Heyman adapt Heinz's premise to the ballet and ballerina setting to create BLACK SWAN.
This is kinda why I was pushing for a independent film like WINTER'S BONE to be examined, and I know the DVD comes with a very good director commentary (unlike BLACK SWAN) describing many changes from the screenplay. I understand a writer/director gets to cut themselves some leeway, so it's not a PURE spec screenplay, but to get investors and professional production cast and crew it's likely Granik did put something remotely professional to paper.
As writers its important to understand the film production processes before we sit down and start dumping hours of homework and consideration into pounding out fantastical, sky's-the-limit screenplays with zero regard as to how this is gonna get done.
Do we wanna write just to write, or write to get something done?
But I do understand that there seems to be only a worthless transcript available of WB, rather than an actual pre-pro screenplay like BS has, so this particular call for examining BS seemed good as any in lieu of that.
FWIW, In all my spare time, I'm considering trying to contact WB's producers/director/writer to see if they could forward a pre-pro screenplay PDF that maybe we could chew on for the next go-round.
Janet, I'm in total agreement with you. I stated what you did in quite some detail, showing why the script ran 119 pages, compared to 108 minutes including credits.
It started a huge argument, no one wanted to hear it, and everyone said how absolutely perfect the script was, which made ZERO sense to me.
I think I found like 15 completely wasted pages of orphans, wrylies, and unfilmable asides, and that's on top of the completely and obviously way overwritten prose.
Janet, I'm in total agreement with you. I stated what you did in quite some detail, showing why the script ran 119 pages, compared to 108 minutes including credits..
And I said the film is exactly the same length as the later draft that I read, 107 pages. Not the 119 pages older draft that you read.
But Pia, the draft that you linked, which in theory means that draft we were all supposed to read, was 119 pages, so I didn't have the luxury of reading whatever draft you did.
Keep in mind other things I brought up about script length vs run-time as well. First of all, there are credits, which most likely run a whole 5 minutes or so. But more importantly, this is a simple movie, in terms of sets, minimal action, minimal characters, and minimal dialogue, meaning the run-time should far exceed the script length.
Cornetto was the one that posted that link. He deleted his original post in this thread and I just copied it. It was my fault for reading the newer script. I had Cornetto's older version and the one I read both on my laptop. When I opened the script and started reading, it didn't occur to me to check which one I was reading. Again, my fault, but it explains why the newer version is closer in length to the film than the older one you guys read. What I'm saying is, the film did not turn out shorter than what you guys read because of orphans and wrylies.
What I'm saying is, the film did not turn out shorter than what you guys read because of orphans and wrylies.
I don't believe that for a single moment.
The inclusion or exclusion of orphans and wrylies is CRUCIAL, CRUCIAL, I say! to the theatrical release of the film spawned from the Holy Screenplay Document!
Or at least that's what I gather from watching many director/producer/writer/actor commentaries. And then there's what the studio budget allowed. Or the actual scene scouting found releases for. And then there's the deleted scenes. And director's cut vs. what the distributor made 'em release. And then what the MPAA has their dirty finger poke around. And then what the director fought to have the MPAA leave alone.
The script is Holy. Thou shalt not deviate from the script. If you are not against the orphans and wrylies in the script then you are for them and will burn in h3ll for an eternity for your insolence.
I misquoted here...the draft we read was 129 pages, not 119...big difference! Huge difference!
How did the draft go from 129 pages to 107 pages? I bet ya alot of orphans, wrylies, and unfilmables were cut. Hopefully, alot of the overwriting was also axed.
Regarding being for or against overwriting/orphans/wrylies, I don't think you can accuse me of that. I think my writing borders on terse, but maybe that's just me.
My point is very simple. If you have 200 orphans in a script, you have 4 extra pages of waste because of it. If you have 100 wrylies, you have 2 extra pages of waste. And the list goes on...
It's not rocket science like Ray deals in, it's just very simple math.
I know Jeff. All I'm saying is that I highly doubt that the script went from 129 pages to 107 by just getting rid of those things. From what I noticed, some of the things you guys discussed were scenes that I never even read in the newer version. In other words, a lot got axed. I did not find the newer version to be overwritten and full of other "fluff".
I know you didn't like BS, but if you or anyone else feel like it, you can check out the version I read in the link I provided a couple of posts back. It read well and tight to me and it was a breeze to read and kept me interested all the way.
Totally NOT taking anybody's side on this (Jeff, you and Pia just duke it out, okay?)
But re: the 107 page script. Just on page 2, the description reads: She is very thin, even for a ballerina. The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum. Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves. Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.
Very nicely done - not arguing that point at all. Could also be condensed to: Her hair is tied tight in a bun. She is very thin - even for a ballerina.
The axe I'm grinding? That I've had scripts with about the same level of picturesque description...and had them slammed as amateur (for that specific reason) and overwritten.
So obviously, we outside the business have to deal with a different set of rules than established insiders. Which gets kinda frustrating.
Which doesn't make the movie (and very likely the script) any less wonderful...
I think descriptions all boil down to, narrative tug vs white on the page, as Babz refers to it. If a story is engaging (the opinion is divided on this script), then most readers won't come down hard on you for an extra line of fitting and appropriate description that adds a visual. On the other hand, if the story, pacing, characters, tone, internal and external conflict, or whatever, are off and the action descriptions are a little too heavy, that can be the one thing to stick in someones throat. I have said myself at the start of this thread that make people would tear this up if it was posted here for unfilmables etc.
But re: the 107 page script. Just on page 2, the description reads: She is very thin, even for a ballerina. The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum. Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves. Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.
I’ve got no problem at all with this description because it is not general meaningless detail. The writer is describing a set of close up shots and as I recall these kind of shots are used in the film.
For me this is an example of the writer giving the filmmakers a clear picture of what should be on screen without resorting to specific camera direction or a MONTAGE/SERIES OF SHOTS.
Another reason I like this bit of writing is that it is part of setting the tone of the script overall. We know that we’re going to see a close up examination of the physical demands of ballet and that at times we’ll linger on those details.
Honestly, my bitching isn't again the amount of description per-se. It's the double standard that seems to exist. Established writers are allowed that leeway. (Like with the Black Swan script.)
For unproduced writers, that degree of description is considered a strike against them.
As I'd mentioned earlier, it's very likely due to the fact that unproduced writers are given a shorter amount of time to get their pitch across, before an agent or manager gets bored, puts the script down and just goes onto the next one.
Different playing field, and different rules.
An established writer doesn't have that problem - he/she's already got the audience willing to give the script a full look....
It's paradoxical. - the more experience a writer has the more "coach pitching" they're given. - the less experience a writer has the more "major league pitching" they're given.
Total BS, but... whatever. Just gotta deal with it.
But maybe it's more like dating. - first few dates everyone gets all cleaned up (assuming you're civilized). - after a while couples are peeing in the toilet while the other brushes their teeth.
Certainly you wouldn't brush teeth while the other pees in the toilet on a first date, right?
It's the double standard that seems to exist. Established writers are allowed that leeway. (Like with the Black Swan script.)
For unproduced writers, that degree of description is considered a strike against them.
Certainly a gray area for scriptwriters is to what extent it's reasonable to suggest shots and visuals. Looking at it from the filmmaker's point of view -- if Joe Eszterhas tells you (indirectly) what images he thinks should be presented and how they should be presented, you will most likely take that into account. He may not be a director, but he's been on a lot of film sets, he's worked with a lot of big directors, and he probably has a good idea of how camera setups work.
The same cannot be said of, for example, any writer (that I'm aware of) on Simply. Some people have been through film school, some people have shot some indie shorts, and so on. Most people here just want to be writers. Writers write, they don't direct. Camera setups are the director's job. Directors, producers et al might be mildly interested in a seasoned veteran's opinion of where the camera should go, but there's no reason they should be interested in the opinion of a writer trying to break into the business.
It's for this same reason (partly) that one doesn't write anything that directs the actor. I dunno. I guess the point I'm trying to make is: of course the double standard exists, and it should. Writers who are "amateurs" by definition probably don't know much about directing. The more description one writes, the more directing one is doing. Writers who are "professional" will most likely have a more complete understanding of the filmmaking process, having been on sets, in preproduction meetings, et al, and therefore are more valuable sources of opinion for directing approaches.
Personally, if I'm looking at directing something, I read it once to get the gist of the story and then, on subsequent readings, ignore everything except dialogue and slugs. Who cares what the writer thinks about anything else?
Agree completely with your post - which actually wasn't mutually exclusive with my complaint re: leeway for descriptions. (IE: visuals...aside from camera angles or acting prompts.)
Let's put it this way. If anyone on SS went into that level of detail on a character's vertebra and musculature in their script (as seen in Black Swan)...it'd be decried as over writing. Even if it does add a number of useful and pertinent things to the story's atmosphere, and characterization (things that are the proper realm of a writer.)
But again - that's how the game's played. And I'll bow to it as a reality.
If you are trained for film, it's difficult to divorce yourself from the training entirely. When you write a script you write the shots you are seeing in your head. To ask a writer with this background to do otherwise is kind of absurd. About the only thing you could hope for is that they limit it to character and story.
I think that's what the writer did here. "Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves" is just a way of visually saying she's athletic.
FWIW: I'm not complaining about a writer using visual descriptions. I'm a huge fan of them, myself.
I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing. (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)
FWIW: I'm not complaining about a writer using visual descriptions. I'm a huge fan of them, myself.
I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing. (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)
Most people will understand and agree. At the end of the day, we all know that we need to be able to construct what's "on demand" -- on demand. If we can do that, and make money in the process, we will be successful. Well, we will be successful on the money level at least. ...
After that stepping stone, when we've learned a lot of the ace and base, then, that's when we can learn to be truly creative. Just as Ray and others have stated and I commend them for their efforts. One needs to know the whole process (call it by any name you want) and know it to a fault. By this, even though it might seem constricting, really, it's unleashing. Because after one gets with that, they can unleash their creative spirit. But...
Certain things need to be in order. There may be many variations of such order and I am not so skilled to list them however, if we can identify some of them, firstly, then we are at least on our way to constructing a story-- adding depth and detail as we ourselves assimilate all of the input we receive.
Re: the heavy visual descriptions:
I imaged a slow moving camera. The detail. The backbone. The skinny almost malnourished backbone. ...
I see nothing wrong with this except that new writers often mistake good detail and overdo it in their scripts. It's not wrong; it's just not appropriate for their purpose. For example: Any fine description, like perhaps a woman's strong fingers-- they only need that detail if they are relevant to the story. Like perhaps, the woman with the strong fingers, winds up plucking up a child from some dangerous situation and the woman, whose strong hands needed to be such, were the object of necessity. They weren't just strong fingers, but they were an asset to her person. They were something pointed to, purposeful, and not extraneous.
Meaningful. That's the bottom line. It needs to be meaningful in whatever world you create. A visual description need not be detailed. It all depends upon the goals at hand. That's what writers need to discern in their stories.
Agreed! Didn't mean to imply that I was contradicting your post -- only expanding on why I thought the double standard existed.
I'd say it probably pushes people towards under-writing description, in a lot of cases. A lot of amateur scripts feel very bland even when they're pretty good, and I bet it's because they don't (and probably can't) allow themselves any detail whatsoever in description.
Personally, almost all of the description in Black Swan added something for me -- I guess our job is to figure out how to imply that stuff without being allowed to write it like the pros are...
Personally, almost all of the description in Black Swan added something for me -- I guess our job is to figure out how to imply that stuff without being allowed to write it like the pros are...
You ARE a pro for G-d's sake!. Just add hours and... (Well I won't mention the other...)
Seriously, the most important is continuity in what you're doing and getting together with like-minded individuals. What the hell? You can talk numbers and construct 'till the cows come home, but if you dun got no feelin', yoos a dead guy.
I can't help but think of Breanne. She's a brilliant woman and she's just working. That's all. Working.Sincerely working. ...
IMHO, I think that's what make B.S. so great. They were working. Applying themselves at a level that most people never will realize in a single happy moment of their lifetimes. People that manage to get into this kind of groove and be successful are more than average people. They are the ones that, like Ray, are willing to go further into "the story". Maybe...
Totally NOT taking anybody's side on this (Jeff, you and Pia just duke it out, okay?)
But re: the 107 page script. Just on page 2, the description reads: She is very thin, even for a ballerina. The skin on her chest stretches tautly over her sternum. Defined vertebrae run up her back, sinewy muscles contract as she moves. Her slender neck leads to her hair, contained in a ballerina's bun.
Very nicely done - not arguing that point at all. Could also be condensed to: Her hair is tied tight in a bun. She is very thin - even for a ballerina.
The axe I'm grinding? That I've had scripts with about the same level of picturesque description...and had them slammed as amateur (for that specific reason) and overwritten. So obviously, we outside the business have to deal with a different set of rules than established insiders. Which gets kinda frustrating.
Which doesn't make the movie (and very likely the script) any less wonderful...
Who is it that's doing the slamming?
The problem we have is that cultures develop on internet sites that aren't necessarily ones that reflect the real world of filmmaking.
Aronofsky pretty much filmed that sequence shot for shot. He obviously understood and agreed that it was important to show just how finely tuned her body was.
There's often a rush to "condense" things, but very often the things that people try to condense are important and the abridged version isn't the same as the original. Being thin is a character description, but it doesn't equate to what wwe have here where we are invited to pore over her body in detail.
Industry professionals would say you're judged on the same rules as every other professional and that separate rules for beginners are just make believe.
Certainly a gray area for scriptwriters is to what extent it's reasonable to suggest shots and visuals. Looking at it from the filmmaker's point of view -- if Joe Eszterhas tells you (indirectly) what images he thinks should be presented and how they should be presented, you will most likely take that into account. He may not be a director, but he's been on a lot of film sets, he's worked with a lot of big directors, and he probably has a good idea of how camera setups work.
The same cannot be said of, for example, any writer (that I'm aware of) on Simply. Some people have been through film school, some people have shot some indie shorts, and so on. Most people here just want to be writers. Writers write, they don't direct. Camera setups are the director's job. Directors, producers et al might be mildly interested in a seasoned veteran's opinion of where the camera should go, but there's no reason they should be interested in the opinion of a writer trying to break into the business.
It's for this same reason (partly) that one doesn't write anything that directs the actor. I dunno. I guess the point I'm trying to make is: of course the double standard exists, and it should. Writers who are "amateurs" by definition probably don't know much about directing. The more description one writes, the more directing one is doing. Writers who are "professional" will most likely have a more complete understanding of the filmmaking process, having been on sets, in preproduction meetings, et al, and therefore are more valuable sources of opinion for directing approaches.
Personally, if I'm looking at directing something, I read it once to get the gist of the story and then, on subsequent readings, ignore everything except dialogue and slugs. Who cares what the writer thinks about anything else?
Don't really agree with this, Chris.
Ultimately you can't really write a script without directing on the page because everything you type is essentially a shot.
If you describe a field that reaches out into the distance...you're saying it's a wide shot.
If you describe an eye looking through a key hole...you're implying an extreme close up.
Is not this really the very essence of visual storytelling and one of the key skills a screenwriter should have?
I'm bitching about the double standard whereby any one of us would be panned--and labeled an amateur--for doing the exact same thing. (Though I understand why it would be so, from an agent's point of view.)
Listen to what the people are telling you. If they are telling you not to do something because you can't - screw them. Imposing limitations "just because" doesn't buy anyone credence in my book. If they are telling you not to do something and they can back it up with why -- then evaluate their evidence and make your own decision on what you are willing to sacrifice. Be strong, write in your own voice (whatever that may be). Be unique and try to make the uniqueness acceptable to the masses rather than trying to blend in with the crowd. Being unique might not win you contests but it will get you noticed.
Let me try to make what I'm saying a bit clearer. If you provide a readable script to an agent with an excellent marketable story there's no way they'd pass up on it if you broke a few screenwriting rules. At the very worst they will ask you to rewrite the parts they think will cause a problem when they try to sell it. The key words here are readable and marketable.
In this case the agent is providing you with a direct reason why changes are needed in your script and the agent may indeed say cut down on the prose. As opposed to getting feedback from peer review when Joe Schmoe says you have to cut down on your prose because I don't like it, it's not the way I do it and I heard somewhere that professionals will think you're an amateur.
Of course there might be a grain of truth in what Joe Schmoe says but it's going to ultimately be your decision if and where you draw the line in the prose. Getting the same advice from an agent is a bit more black and white, you have a real reason to make the change.
Ultimately you can't really write a script without directing on the page because everything you type is essentially a shot...Is not this really the very essence of visual storytelling and one of the key skills a screenwriter should have?
Yessir; I agree completely. I was arguing only why extensive description is more acceptable to filmmakers in "pro" scripts than in "amateur" scripts, or why the double standard that Janet referred to exists...nothing further.
Do you think the double standard exists, or do you think it's just imaginary?
As far as I'm concerned it's not whether the script is pro or amateur that's the deciding factor...it's simply whether the description is warranted or not.
Pros are more often in control of their stories and they may decide that they need to clarify something or have a moments of intense description because it suits the mood and adds something the writer considers important.
I think these things become "rules" as such because the majority of pre-pro writers overdescribe in instances that don't warrant it...so you have a general outline to try and help the majority.
But at some point I think you need you need to dispense with them....or if not dispense with them, realise that they are at least just rules of thumb and not commandments never to be broken...
Completely agreed Rick. What I was trying to say above but I'm much more militant about it.
I do think the double standard exists - but I think it's one-sided. The industry doesn't have the double standard but those trying to break into the industry do.
I have to say from experience - I've had an insider (industry pro) complain about my level of description. And while I'm obviously biased towards my own scripts, I would argue that the description in question was necessary for setting the appropriate atmosphere, and was no more extensive than what I read in Black Swan.
So I do think the double standard exists as reality, on the industry side.
Again, I can even understand why that's the case. The pros read tons of scripts, slog through lots of scripts that aren't ready for prime time. So I'm sure that their tolerance level for color and descriptives is positively non-existent. You don't get to the point and fast - you're gone. OTHO, if they're reading a script from an established pro, the attitude is going to be totally different. They'll be interested in the subtleties, and attention to detail that makes the difference between good and great.
So is it understandable on a practical level? Yes. Is it fair? Nah....
I can understand what you're saying. I think the truth is what Michael said...if the reader is enjoying the script, these things don't stand out so much.
There is an increasing issue that scripts that read well (or quickly) are considered good scripts...which isn't necessarily the case and is resluting in a certain type of light and breezy film.
It's when the read starts to get cumbersome that you start to look for reasons why...and over description may play a part in that.
I've read thousands of pre-pro scripts over the years and to be truthful, I can count the features I've actually ENJOYED reading on the fingers of one hand. Pro scripts tend to eb enjoyable to read, even if at the end of them you don't think they're particularly brilliant.
Have you got a feature on here at the moment Janet? I've got a couple of hours spare to look over it, see if we can see any differences...
Writer/producer/director - I don't believe in pigeonholing yourself to just one. People who self-identify (and essentially lord over others) are either talentless amateurs, or massive as*holes who even the 'pros' don't want to have a beer with. Let's be fair.
This debate isn't really touching on the crux, which is that you need to be networking, being a part of making films, and concentrating on what your own scripts are about and why we should want to watch them.
A lot of this is pretty superfluous discussion, really.
I have not been participating, and I plan on staying on the sidelines, but I actually find it really interesting. It goes back to the old debate for me, is a script a blue print for a film, or is it a written story. It's obviously somewhere in between and needs to be able to do both things, grab the reader and provide a direction for a film. Whether it should be more 'blueprinty' or more like a traditional written story is something I find of interest. I'll just keep watching the discussion, but I am interested in it.
This debate isn't really touching on the crux, which is that you need to be networking, being a part of making films, and concentrating on what your own scripts are about and why we should want to watch them. A lot of this is pretty superfluous discussion, really.
I debated whether or not to get into this thread...
As usual Andrew you hit the nail on the button. No I'm not part of making films, but the last year, I 've started networking. I've changed my whole approach ...back to how I originally started writing my features.
side note:
There is no double standard in Hollywood. If you want to be a pro then write like one-- which means using everything in your arsenal to tell a compelling story. But in the end, what really tanks your script is this hard truth...your script just isn't good enough.
Blueprints are pretty variable, as are scripts-to-screen.
Now, VCR instructions? Not so variable.
Scripts-to-screen are all over the place due to a wide assortment of factors.
Director's gonna have his/her own vision. Producers are going to have budget consideration that determine locations and cast, both of which will have an impact from script-to-screen. Actors are going want to change every GD line and deliver it eight different ways, which is nothing compared to director David Fincher who will have them deliver it ninty-eight different ways. The DP is even going to have a say in how scenes are going to be shot. The location itself may force structural changes in the story. The editor is going to take the best take variant and monkey with other pick-ups and alternate deliveries to make the story geehaw for timing and pace. Every time you see the catch-all bin of "deleted scenes" not only is that potentially tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of screen minute dollars being ultimately wasted on the feature, but it is an indication of how much changes script-to-screen. The distributor (if you should be so lucky) actually has the right to change some things. The MPAA is going to balk at some stuff, ask for it to be deleted or changed, the director can often argue to keep some stuff but may very well be forced to acquiesce others. That's three changes right there. If you see "Director's Cut" or "Unrated Cut" those are variations. Once in awhile you'll hear directors talk of 'the fat cut" which are often three or four hours in length. What does that say about the writer's contribution to the overall "featured" product?
Ghost? You take a look at the formatting on this script, and tell me if you really think that any agent would've read past page one, if written by a simply scripter today.
Or argue with a straight face that The Klumps would've sold as a spec script....especially from a non-pro.
Ain't no-body here on SS that's arguing that there isn't room for improvement on their own work. At least, I hope not.
But a double standard? Yeah, there is. And it's due to the fact that a non-pro spec script has to shine brighter, when it's buried under the load of other scripts, all clamoring for the same attention. Pros don't have the same competition - they've already got that first foot in the door.
Networking, being part of the film making process, getting a film degree from NYU, carrying coffee for Quentin Tarantino, living in southern California, having a studio executive in the family...these are all more important than what format you use, or a lot of other stuff we discuss. Absolutely. Unfortunately, we just can't all do those things. Some of us are stuck trying to write the best script we can, getting it out there, and praying. Like Ray said, that's like hitting a bullet with a bullet. But if that's all one has, at least try an aim well.
Like Kevin, I've really been trying hard to stay out of this, but you know me...I can't.
Janet is 100% correct in what she says. She's 100% correct with the examples she gives. And there more than 5,000 other examples that apply as well.
It just downright shocks me that everyone can't see this, or admit to it. It makes no sense whatsoever.
And on top of all that, this thread is about the draft of the script we were provided, as well as the movie that it turned into. If you haven't read the script and/or watched the movie, how can you even think about posting here?
A Spec script is a blueprint for the writer's ideas of a potential movie. It also has to be written well, formatted properly, and be an enjoyable, engaging read.
There are improvements available for any and all scripts ever written. Nothing is flawless or remotely perfect. If you truly believe otherwise, you are wearing blinders and following along like sheep to a slaughter.
Actually, it's downright insulting to take the position that because a script is written by a "Pro" that makes it untouchable and without criticism.
Actually, it's downright insulting to take the position that because a script is written by a "Pro" that makes it untouchable and without criticism.
Agreed.
Heyman's 129pg adaptation of someone else's premise for his boss, as his director of development, got touched like a fresh twelve year old Philippine sex-worker. It got to' up!
Ghost? You take a look at the formatting on this script, and tell me if you really think that any agent would've read past page one, if written by a simply scripter today.
Or argue with a straight face that The Klumps would've sold as a spec script....especially from a non-pro.
Ain't no-body here on SS that's arguing that there isn't room for improvement on their own work. At least, I hope not.
But a double standard? Yeah, there is. And it's due to the fact that a non-pro spec script has to shine brighter, when it's buried under the load of other scripts, all clamoring for the same attention. Pros don't have the same competition - they've already got that first foot in the door.
I'm done with this.
I know you're out of the discussion, but it isn't really fair to bring a 1976 script into this. Things have changed...and that's without going into the fact that NO-ONE liked the script. The guy that funded Lucas said he didn't understand the whole concept of the film but he was giving him the money because he was backing Lucas himself because he thought he was a genius.
I have not been participating, and I plan on staying on the sidelines, but I actually find it really interesting. It goes back to the old debate for me, is a script a blue print for a film, or is it a written story. It's obviously somewhere in between and needs to be able to do both things, grab the reader and provide a direction for a film. Whether it should be more 'blueprinty' or more like a traditional written story is something I find of interest. I'll just keep watching the discussion, but I am interested in it.
It's changed. The studioes aren't run by filmmakers any more, but by Accountants and Lawyers.
They employ readers to evaluate scripts. These readers have to go through hundreds of scripts...it's a long and tedious process.
This has resulted in a situation where scripts that are easy to read have tended to receive better coverage.
Readers are not directors or producers, they might not get what makes a good film, or understand it as a blueprint. If it's more interesting to read (written in a sort of whizz, bang, boom stlye) it keeps them awake and has an edge. Your slow burning Epic has a serious disadvantage in this system compared to a 90 page comedy full of witty asides.
David Mamet gets quite upset about this in his book called Bambi vs Godzilla, where he basically blames this system for destroying American Cinema. (He writes scripts that read like instruction manuals though...his films are always good, and you can see the scripts are good blueprints for them...but damn they're often hard to read).
In pure sales terms readability>content.
I suppose in an ideal world what you want to try and do is get everything you want in your script and as strong a blueprint as possible, then refine the writing so it reads as quickly and as interestingly as possible.
You're right...that one probably isn't 100% fair. But there are plenty of current scripts that were produced recently for which it would be fair. But I'm too tired now to drag around the web and produce the scripts as examples.
I stated my view already (which was simply that due to circumstance, "non-pro" spec scripts have to shine brighter than many pro scripts. Creating an ipso-facto double standard. Not even saying it's intentional. But it's there. And I can't fathom how anyone who watches *some* of what comes out of Hollywood could doubt that.)
Rick, as I mentioned in the 'Territory' thread, I grant that directing camera flow and using similiar writing techniques are signs of a superior script. Kudos. Plan to use that principle myself, since you brought it to my attention. But I doubt that the majority of scripts that were produced in 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008 - or further back - reach anywhere close to that level of expertise. Yes, we should aspire to it. But I can't - and won't - be blind to the fact that alot of pro scripts don't reach it either. But they got produced.
Oh, I agree very few pro scripts reach the level of expertise of Black Swan.
I'm never sure whether it's fair to judge the scripts on the films they produce. Speaking to the pros on the likes of Artful Writer...it's pretty clear that their scripts get butchered. Three scripts were even put together willy nilly into one for the Hulk for instance.
Hollywood also greenlights films without a script. They need a new Spiderman before the deal with Marvel runs out...it goes into Production and then someone cobbles something together at the last minute.
If you can find me some crap scripts that have been produced, I'd be interested. When you have time, of course.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club XIV - Black Swan
Logged
But that Nina was unlucky in that she inherited a personality disorder from her mom too. 
