Washed-up screenwriter Joe Gillis, on the run from repo men, hides out at the crumbling mansion of ex-silent-screen-star Norma Desmond, helping her write a terrible screenplay about Salome. He discovers that her butler Max von Mayerling is actually her ex-husband. She pitches Salome to Cecil B. DeMille, but he turns her down. Norma falls in love with Joe, but he sneaks out to work on a new screenplay with young studio reader Betty Schaefer. Norma finally shoots Joe dead and he falls into her pool. DeMille has to come coax Norma into turning herself in by saying “We’re ready for your close-up.”
PART
#1: CONCEPT 17/19
|
|
The Pitch: Does this concept excite everyone who
hears about it?
|
|
Is the
one sentence description uniquely appealing?
|
A dead screenwriter tells us how
he became the kept boy of a
psychotic ex-silent-screen-goddess and tried to get away.
|
Does
the concept contain an intriguing ironic contradiction?
|
Yes, The
nation’s most glamorous people are deluded lowlifes, etc.
|
Is this a story anyone can identify with, projected onto
a bigger canvas, with higher stakes?
|
Yes.
|
Story Fundamentals: Will this concept generate a
strong story?
|
|
Is the
concept simple enough to spend more time on character than plot?
|
Yes. There’s very
little plot.
|
Is
there one character that the audience will choose to be their “hero”?
|
Yes, Joe
|
Does
the story follow the progress of the hero’s problem, not the hero’s daily life?
|
Yes.
|
Does
the story present a unique relationship?
|
Yes.
|
Is at
least one actual human being opposed to what the hero is doing?
|
Various, as his goals change. First the repo men, then Max, then
Betty, then Norma.
|
Does
this challenge represent the hero’s greatest hope and/or greatest fear and/or
an ironic answer to the hero’s question?
|
Yes, his greatest fear and an ironic
fulfillment of his desire for a pool.
|
Does
something inside the hero have a particularly volatile reaction to the
challenge?
|
Not really. He under-reacts to the horror of his situation, right up
until his death (even after that, in his nonchalant postmortem
narration). He doesn’t even
noticeably react to being shot.
|
Does
this challenge become something that is the not just hard for the hero to do (an obstacle) but hard for the hero
to want to do (a conflict)?
|
Yes, working for Norma is hard to want
to do, because of his self-respect, and romancing Betty is hard to want to
do, because she’s engaged to his friend.
|
In the
end, is the hero the only one who can solve the problem?
|
No, Betty is trying harder to save him
than he is to save himself. He cannot solve the problem, and doesn’t try very
hard.
|
Does
the hero permanently transform the situation and vice versa?
|
Yes, he finally tells Norma the truth
about his situation, and it kills him.
|
The
Hook: Will this be marketable and generate word of mouth?
|
|
Does
the story satisfy the basic human urges that get people to buy and recommend
this genre?
|
Pretty much. The movie goes down easy, despite its unusual elements:
it’s enjoyably funny and creepy throughout.
|
Does
this story show us at least one image we haven’t seen before (that can be
used to promote the final product)?
|
Yes, many: a monkey funeral (Wilder
told his cinematographer to “use the standard monkey funeral set-up”), a
silent vamp turned into a vampire, essentially. The backlot, etc.
|
Is
there at least one “Holy Crap!” scene (to create word of mouth)?
|
Yes, many. The floating corpse, the monkey funeral, the whole set-up,
the final scene.
|
Does
the story contain a surprise that is not obvious from the beginning?
|
Yes, the fact that he agrees to be a
gigolo, which was totally shocking at the time.
|
Is the
story marketable without revealing the surprise?
|
Yes.
|
Is the
conflict compelling and ironic both before and after the surprise?
|
Yes.
|
PART
#2: CHARACTER 21/22
|
|
Believe:
Do we recognize the hero as a human being?
|
|
Does
the hero have a moment of humanity early on? (A funny, or kind, or oddball,
or out-of-character, or comically vain, or unique-but-universal “I thought I
was the only one who did that!” moment?)
|
Yes, he’s funny with the repo men.
“You say the cutest things.”
|
Is the
hero defined by ongoing actions and attitudes, not by backstory?
|
Yes, but much more by attitude than
action.
|
Does
the hero have a well-defined public identity?
|
Yes, a nice guy and a
good-but-not-good-enough writer.
|
Does
the surface characterization ironically contrast with a hidden interior self?
|
Yes, he’s really hollow inside.
|
Does
the hero have a consistent metaphor family (drawn from his or her job,
background, or developmental state)?
|
Yes, B-movie clichés. (Yes, although
Ed Sikov points out in his DVD commentary that Joe sometimes veers into
Austrian-Jewish syntax that doesn’t match his Ohio-goy background, as when he
accuses his agent of “making with the golf sticks”)
|
Does
the hero have a default personality trait?
|
Yes, bitter cynicism.
|
Does
the hero have a default argument tactic?
|
Yes, slipperiness, he deflects all
conflict.
|
Is the
hero’s primary motivation for tackling this challenge strong, simple, and
revealed early on?
|
Yes, he wants to keep his car.
|
Care:
Do we feel for the hero?
|
|
Does
the hero start out with a shortsighted or wrongheaded philosophy (or accept a
false piece of advice early on)?
|
“I heard you were one of the ones with
talent.” “That was last year.
This year I’m trying to make a living.”
|
Does
the hero have a false or shortsighted goal in the first half?
|
Yes, sell a script, save his car from
the repo men.
|
Does
the hero have an open fear or anxiety about his or her future, as well as a
hidden, private fear?
|
Open: not getting work. Hidden: that
he’s a hired monkey.
|
Is the
hero physically and emotionally vulnerable?
|
Yes, thought he thinks he isn’t in
either way.
|
Does
the hero have at least one untenable great flaw we empathize with? (but…)
|
Yes, he’s easily corruptible and
passive.
|
Invest:
Can we trust the hero to tackle this challenge?
|
|
…Is that great flaw (ironically) the natural
flip-side of a great strength we admire?
|
Yes, he has a devastating cynical wit,
and a little writing ability.
|
Is the
hero curious?
|
Yes, he’s always pushing for more info
about Norma.
|
Is the
hero generally resourceful?
|
Yes, he cleverly avoids the
repo men.
|
Does
the hero have rules he or she lives by (either stated or implied)?
|
No. He stands for nothing. He has no self-image.
|
Is the
hero surrounded by people who sorely lack his or her most valuable quality?
|
Yes, everyone else (Norma, Max, Betty)
is still enamored of the glamour of Hollywood. Only he sees through it.
|
…And
is the hero willing to let them know that, subtly or directly?
|
Yes, he has a razor-sharp rapier wit.
|
Is the
hero already doing something active when we first meet him or her?
|
Yes, he’s trying to keep his
car.
|
Does
the hero have (or claim) decision-making authority?
|
Somewhat. He can go at any time.
|
Does
the hero use pre-established special skills from his or her past to solve
problems (rather than doing what anybody would do)?
|
Yes, he gets both romances using his
screenwriting abilities.
|
PART
#3: STRUCTURE (If the story is about the solving of a large problem) 19/21
|
|
1st
Quarter: Is the challenge laid out in the first quarter?
|
|
When
the story begins, is the hero becoming increasingly irritated about his or
her longstanding social problem (while still in denial about an internal
flaw)?
|
Yes, he’s tired of being broke and
unemployed.
|
Does
this problem become undeniable due to a social humiliation at the beginning
of the story?
|
Yes, he gets humiliated by a script
reader.
|
Does
the hero discover an intimidating opportunity to fix the problem?
|
Yes, he finds an aging actress who
needs a screenwriter.
|
Does
the hero hesitate until the stakes are raised?
|
Not really. He tells us that he’s dubious, but he makes little attempt
to leave once the offer is made.
|
Does the hero commit to pursuing the opportunity by the
end of the first quarter?
|
In a relatively passive way: he
accepts that they’ve brought his bags over.
|
2nd
Quarter: Does the hero try the easy way in the second quarter?
|
|
Does
the hero’s pursuit of the opportunity quickly lead to an unforeseen conflict
with another person?
|
Yes, Norma won’t let him write a good
script.
|
Does
the hero try the easy way throughout the second quarter?
|
Yes, he tries to finish the script as
quickly as possible.
|
Does
the hero have a little fun and get excited about the possibility of success?
|
Yes, he gets away and finds that the
reader, Betty, now wants to work with him. He thinks he can have it both ways.
|
Does the
easy way lead to a big crash around the midpoint, resulting in the loss of a
safe space and/or sheltering relationship?
|
Yes, he finds out that Norma has
attempted suicide. This lures
him back into his lair, and cuts off his access to Betty.
|
3rd
Quarter: Does the hero try the hard way in the third quarter?
|
|
Does
the hero try the hard way from this point on?
|
Not at first, he becomes an aimless
gigolo, but then he reconnects with Betty and begins to sneak out to see her
at night.
|
Does
the hero find out who his or her real friends and real enemies are?
|
Yes, he realizes that Norma is his
enemy and Betty is his real salvation.
|
Do the
stakes, pace, and motivation all escalate at this point?
|
Somewhat. Artie proposes marriage to Betty. Norma catches him.
|
Does
the hero learn from mistakes in a painful way?
|
Yes, when he realizes that he can’t
lead Betty on.
|
Does a
further setback lead to a spiritual crisis?
|
Yes, when he realizes that Betty wants
to leave Artie for him.
|
4th
Quarter: Does the challenge climax in the fourth quarter?
|
|
Does
the hero adopt a corrected philosophy after the spiritual crisis?
|
Yes, in telling her, “I’d
take it in a second, but it’s a little too dressy for sitting behind a copy
desk in Dayton, Ohio.”
|
After
that crisis, does the hero finally commit to pursuing a corrected goal, which
still seems far away?
|
Somewhat. He decides to leave Norma, but that
seems easy.
|
Before
the final quarter of the story begins, (if not long before) has your hero
switched to being proactive, instead of reactive?
|
Somewhat, when he starts
sneaking out. He doesn’t really
become proactive until he walks out, with fatal consequences. Perhaps he intended to tell Betty, or
leave Norma, but…
|
Despite
these proactive steps, is the timeline unexpectedly moved up, forcing the
hero to improvise for the finale?
|
Yes, Norma calls Betty before he can
confess.
|
Do all
strands of the story and most of the characters come together for the
climactic confrontation?
|
Yes, Betty comes over to Norma’s.
|
Does
the hero’s inner struggle climax shortly after (or possible at the same time
as) his or her outer struggle?
|
Well, shortly before. He finally finds
his self-respect, then gets killed.
|
Is
there an epilogue/ aftermath/ denouement in which the challenge is finally
resolved (or succumbed to), and we see how much the hero has changed
(possibly through reversible behavior)
|
Earlier in the climax, when he finally
has the strength to resist Norma, even when she threatens suicide.
|
PART
#4: SCENEWORK (Joe is shown up to see Norma, who assumes that
he’s there to plan her monkey’s funeral, but when he explains that he’s a
screenwriter, she hires him to rewrite her screenplay for Salome instead.) 17/20
|
|
The
Set-Up: Does this scene begin with the essential elements it needs?
|
|
Were
tense and/or hopeful (and usually false) expectations for this interaction
established beforehand?
|
Max’s “If you need any help with the
coffin, call me,” has got him worried.
|
Does
the scene eliminate small talk and repeated beats by cutting out the
beginning (or possibly even the middle)?
|
No, it starts at the beginning.
|
Is
this an intimidating setting that keeps characters active?
|
Yes, it’s a glamorous woman’s bedroom
with a mysterious corpse under a blanket.
|
Is one
of the scene partners not planning to have this conversation (and quite
possibly has something better to do)?
|
Yes, he just wants to get out of
there.
|
Is
there at least one non-plot element complicating the scene?
|
Yes, the monkey funeral, the organ,
etc.
|
Does
the scene establish its own mini-ticking-clock (if only through subconscious
anticipation)?
|
Somewhat, When will the scary butler
do to him? When will the real
monkey undertaker arrive?
|
The
Conflict: Do the conflicts play out in a lively manner?
|
|
Does this scene both advance the plot and reveal
character through emotional reactions?
|
Yes, it launches the plot and
introduces the co-star. Her feelings are hurt by his disrespect, and
she’s able to hurt him a little bit in return.
|
Does
the audience have (or develop) a rooting interest in this scene (which may
sometimes shift)?
|
Yes, we want him to uses Norma
to get what he wants.
|
Are
two agendas genuinely clashing (rather than merely two personalities)?
|
Yes, he wants to get of there, she
wants a monkey funeral.
|
Does
the scene have both a surface conflict and a suppressed conflict (one of
which is the primary conflict in this scene)?
|
For her: Open, she wants a new
screenwriter. Suppressed: she
wants a new lover. For him:
Open: He wants to get out of there, Suppressed: He needs work.
|
Is the
suppressed conflict (which may or may not come to the surface) implied
through subtext (and/or called out by the other character)?
|
Yes.
|
Are
the characters cagy (or in denial) about their own feelings?
|
No, they’re pretty open about them.
|
Do
characters use verbal tricks and traps to get what they want, not just direct
confrontation?
|
Yes, he subtly mentions that he’s a
writer, knowing that she’ll take the bait.
|
Is
there re-blocking, including literal push and pull between the scene partners
(often resulting in just one touch)?
|
Yes, lots of reblocking, She keeps
beckoning and then repelling him, but they never quit touch, except
exchanging the object.
|
Are
objects given or taken, representing larger values?
|
Yes, he takes her script (which is her
heart)
|
The
Outcome: Does this scene change the story going forward?
|
|
As a
result of this scene, does at least one of the scene partners end up doing
something that he or she didn’t intend to do when the scene began?
|
Yes, she decides to hire him and he
agrees to stay.
|
Does
the outcome of the scene ironically reverse (and/or ironically fulfill) the
original intention?
|
Yes, he starts by mocking her dead
monkey, then becomes her new monkey.
|
Are
previously-asked questions answered and new questions posed?
|
Previous: whose house is this? New: He
says he later found out a lot more about Max and Norma
|
Does
the scene cut out early, on a question (possibly to be answered instantly by
the circumstances of the next scene)?
|
We have a dread that Joe’s scheme to extract money out
of Norma will probably fail as much as his other schemes, but with worse
consequences. (Partially because we’ve already seen him dead in her pool!)
|
Is the
audience left with a growing hope and/or fear for what might happen next?
(Not just in the next scene, but generally)
|
No. It could have ended on this line: “By then I’d begun
concocting a little plot of my own…”
with the implied question of “What plot?”, but instead he let’s Joe’s narration spool on
and reveal his plan, which we then see him enact. Wilder, despite being a
master screenwriter, always had a bad habit of repeated beats and
over-explained plots.
|
PART
#5: DIALOGUE 14/16
|
|
Empathetic:
Is the dialogue true to human nature?
|
|
Does
the writing demonstrate empathy for all of the characters?
|
Yes, even Norma, even Max, even
DeMille.
|
Does
each of the characters, including the hero, have a limited perspective?
|
Yes, very much so. He thinks he sees all the angles, but we see how deluded he really
is.
|
Do the
characters consciously and unconsciously prioritize their own wants, rather
than the wants of others?
|
Very much so. The love interests are both cheating
on others.
|
Are
the characters resistant to openly admitting their feelings (to others and
even to themselves)?
|
Yes, very much so.
|
Do the
characters avoid saying things they wouldn’t say and doing things they
wouldn’t do?
|
Very much so. Betty
gets Norma’s name off of Joe’s cigarette case, Norma reads Betty’s name off
of Joe’s script. They get to
confront each other without him having to admit anything. Max never answers any questions.
|
Do the
characters interrupt each other often?
|
Very much so. He and Norma never seem to hear a thing
the other says.
|
Specific: Is the dialogue specific to this world
and each personality?
|
|
Does
the dialogue capture the jargon and tradecraft of the profession and/or
setting?
|
Yes, very much so.
|
Are
there additional characters with distinct metaphor families, default
personality traits, and default argument strategies from the hero’s?
|
No and yes and yes. They pretty much all have the same
metaphor family: Hollywood, Default personality trait: Norma: Delusional, Max: officious, Betty: idealistic but
ambitious, Argument strategy: Max: ignores all protests, lets silence speak volumes. Norma: emotional blackmail.
|
Heightened:
Is the dialogue more pointed and dynamic than real talk?
|
|
Is the
dialogue more concise than real talk?
|
Yes.
|
Does
the dialogue have more personality than real talk?
|
Yes, very much so.
|
Are
there minimal commas in the dialogue (the lines are not prefaced with Yes,
No, Well, Look, or the other character’s name)?
|
Mostly. It’s a little writerly, despite being so slangy.
|
Do
non-professor characters speak without dependent clauses, conditionals, or
parallel construction?
|
No, Joe’s a writer and loves pithy
turns of phrase: “an older woman who’s well to do, a younger man who’s not
doing too well.”
|
Are
the non-3-dimensional characters impartially polarized into head, heart and
gut?
|
Joe and Betty have two-way polarization:
bitter cynicism vs. fresh-faced idealism. Norma, despite her extremity, is 3-dimensional.
|
Strategic: Are certain dialogue scenes withheld
until necessary?
|
|
Does
the hero have at least one big “I understand you” moment with a love interest
or primary emotional partner?
|
Yes,
between he and Betty talking about their pasts.
|
Is
exposition withheld until the hero and the audience are both demanding to
know it?
|
Somewhat, we get a few big info-dumps,
but Max’s story drips out nicely.
|
Is
there one gutpunch scene, where the subtext falls away and the characters
really lay into each other?
|
Yes, two in a row, when Joe confronts
Betty and then Norma.
|
PART
#6: TONE 10/10
|
|
Genre:
Does the story tap into pre-established expectations?
|
|
Is the
story limited to one genre (or multiple genres that are merged from the
beginning?)
|
Yes, gothic melodrama mixed with
Hollywood satire.
|
Is the
story limited to sub-genres that are compatible with each other, without
mixing metaphors?
|
It’s an odd mix of elements,
noir, haunted house (the wheezing organ), etc., but it works.
|
Does
the ending satisfy most of the expectations of the genre, and defy a few
others?
|
Yes, our hard-boiled narrator is
killed and the murderer is arrested, but it’s all oddly funny.
|
Separate
from the genre, is a consistent mood (goofy, grim, ‘fairy tale’, etc.) established
early and maintained throughout?
|
Yes, pitch-black comedy. Yes, Joe
doesn’t lose his flippantness, even after death, and Norma remains campily
entertaining, even after she kills Joe.
|
Framing:
Does the story set, reset, upset and ultimately exceed its own expectations?
|
|
Is
there a dramatic question posed early on, which will establish in the
audience’s mind which moment will mark the end of the story?
|
Yes, how does Joe end up in that
pool? (Sikov claims that most
people don’t realize that’s Joe until the end, but I think most people
do.)
|
Does the story use framing devices to establish
genre, mood and expectations?
|
Yes, a flashforward and narration.
|
Are
there characters whose situations prefigure various fates that might await
the hero?
|
Yes, many: the monkey, John the
Baptist, Max.
|
Does
foreshadowing create anticipation and suspense (and refocus the audience’s
attention on what’s important)?
|
Yes, Max keeps hinting at his
past. The wind in the pipe organ
plays horror music on its own. The narration keeps hinting at a dark
ending.
|
Are
reversible behaviors used to foreshadow and then confirm change?
|
Yes, he won’t live there and then he
will, he won’t kiss Norma and then he will, he can’t leave and then he can,
etc.
|
Is the
dramatic question answered at the very end of the story?
|
Almost. We find out how he ended up in the pool, but there’s one
really big scene still to come.
|
PART
7: THEME 12/14
|
|
Difficult:
Is the meaning of the story derived from a fundamental moral dilemma?
|
|
Can
the overall theme be stated in the form of an irreconcilable good vs. good
(or evil vs. evil) dilemma?
|
Yes, success vs. dignity
|
Is a
thematic question asked out loud (or clearly implied) in the first half, and
left open?
|
Implicit: Can you take a writing job
without becoming a kept monkey?
|
Do the
characters consistently have to choose between goods, or between evils,
instead of choosing between good and evil?
|
Yes, Joe and Betty are both cheating,
everyone feeds Norma’s violent delusions in order to spare her feelings.
|
Grounded:
Do the stakes ring true to the world of the audience?
|
|
Does
the story reflect the way the world works?
|
Yes.
|
Does
the story have something authentic to say about this type of setting (Is it
based more on observations of this type of setting than ideas about it)?
|
Very much so. It’s filled with real details. Wilder was not only a screenwriter,
but he had been also been a dime-a-dance gigolo back in Vienna: Talk about
writing what you know!
|
Does
the story include twinges of real life national pain?
|
Somewhat. (The topical references are all local: the betrayal of
ex-silent stars, the Black Dahlia murder) There’s no hint of postwar malaise
of anything like that, but it’s hinted that super-rich monsters like Norma
were created by the lack of an income tax before the war, and the new 90% top
tax bracket has relegated them to the past.
|
Are
these issues and the overall dilemma addressed in a way that avoids moral
hypocrisy?
|
Yes. There’s no good way to get
rich. Joe is going to go home to
be a copywriter in Dayton at the end.
|
Do all
of the actions have real consequences?
|
Yes, there’s no getting away from
this.
|
Subtle: Is the theme interwoven throughout so
that it need not be discussed often?
|
|
Do
many small details throughout subtly and/or ironically tie into the thematic
dilemma?
|
Yes, the fact that her screenplay is
about Salome, who got John the Baptist’s head on a plate by doing the dance
of the seven veils (note that Norma drops her veil on the floor while dancing
with Joe.) The fact that Joe and
Betty pitch woo on a phony back lot.
His watch chain catches on the doorknob as he leaves, holding him
back.
|
Are
one or more objects representing larger ideas exchanged throughout the story,
growing in meaning each time?
|
Yes, his car, her car, her manuscript, the pool, the
gun, the spotlights.
|
Untidy:
Is the dilemma ultimately irresolvable?
|
|
Does
the ending tip towards one side of the thematic dilemma without resolving it
entirely?
|
Yes, dignity is somewhat better than
success.
|
Does
the story’s outcome ironically contrast with the initial goal?
|
Yes, he gets his pool, she gets her
return to the screen, and Max even gets to direct again, but all in the most
ironic ways possible.
|
In the
end, is the plot not entirely tidy (some small plot threads left unresolved,
some answers left vague)?
|
It’s fairly tidy, but one big question
is never answered, though: Did Joe decide to leave Norma before or after he
sent Betty away?
|
Do the
characters refuse (or fail) to synthesize the meaning of the story, forcing
the audience to do that?
|
No, he returns from the dead to spell
it out for us. Wilder was not the type to leave anything unsaid.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment