5 Screenwriting Lessons – Collateral

Who Wrote It?

Collateral was written by Stuart Beattie.

How Long is It?

Collateral is 120 minutes long, including credits.

What’s it About?

Collateral follows Max (played by Jamie Foxx), a cab driver in Los Angeles who has been working for years looking for a way to start his own business. His next guest is a mysterious man called Vincent (Played by Tom Cruise), who offers Max $600 to transport him to various LA locations over the course of a single night. Max accepts the offer, but finds out that Vincent is really a hitman contracted to murder five targets during the journey. Forced to continue anyway, Max struggles to find a way to escape as the night progresses.

5 Screenwriting Lessons – Collateral

(The Following May Contain Spoilers)

The Stakes Should Steadily Escalate – As Vincent carries out his five hits, Max is forced to become increasingly involved in his crimes as he tries to prevent them. However, at the start of the story, he is completely passive. The first hit happens in an abrupt and terrifying manner, as the corpse of the victim drops onto the taxi from a nearby window. Max panics when he sees this, shouting and swearing repeatedly, but when Vincent reveals that he was responsible, he does so with a nonchalant “Good guess”, that shows that his actions have not had any effect on him at all, proving that they are almost routine. This establishes Max’s status as a victim, as Vincent’s calm demeanour and his willingness to threaten others and commit violence to achieve his goals place him in complete control of the situation.  The only way that Max can escape from Vincent is if he manages to regain control, and this dynamic allows for increasing tension as the night progresses and his enemy gets closer to his goal.

Switches In Mood Are Important – Sometimes, an elaborate set-up can be used to increase suspense. A notable example of this is in the scene where Vincent carries out his third hit. Stopping at a Jazz bar, he invites the owner to join him and Max at the table and talk about why that genre of music means so much to him. However, when Vincent reveals why he is at the establishment, the scene turns dark abruptly, and the owner is forced to correctly answer a question about the iconic jazz musician Miles Davis, to save his own life. Hearing the owner discuss his backstory makes him into a more sympathetic character, and therefore the viewer wants to see him survive. The fact that Vincent kills him anyway him even more menacing, and highlights the fact that Max lacks the ability to face up to him properly.

Another tense sequence depicts Vincent entering a club to carry out his fourth hit, as a group of cops investigating the case try to execute a stakeout. The sequence is set to loud and up-tempo music and flashing lights. As Vincent tries to get through the crowd to his target and a disorientated Max attempts to escape, the noisy and energetic atmosphere becomes a major distraction. The contrast with the quiet and lonely nature of the majority of settings in the movie, such as Max’s cab, ensures that the club stands out, and its busy nature makes it harder for the characters to fulfil their objectives.

Both Heroes and Villains should be Complex – After he carries out his third hit, Vincent forces Max to stick to his night-time routine by visiting his mother Ida in hospital. However, in the hospital, he behaves with unexpected friendliness and warmth, persuading Max to buy flowers, and striking up a conversation with Ida. The sequence serves two purposes. First of all, it highlights Max’s central flaw, as Ida tells Vincent that “You’d have to hold a gun to his head to make him do anything”. It also makes Vincent seem more human, as he reacts to Ida’s questions with a polite awkwardness that appears genuine, even though he is faking his affection. This makes him even more unnerving, as it ensures it is hard to tell whether or not his statements can be trusted, making him even more difficult to understand.

Meanwhile, Max is defined by his major flaw – an inability to act. Whilst this is common to thriller protagonists, who are expected to start out as passive characters, Max has been spending twelve years waiting for an opportunity to seize his dream. After Vincent kills a policeman who had believed his innocence, Max calls him out on his sociopathic nature. Vincent responds by attacking Max’s cowardice, claiming that his big plans are never going to come to fruition, because he lacks the conviction to make them happen. This turns into an important scene in Max’s character growth, as he defies Vincent, deliberately crashing the cab to ensure that he cannot get to his fifth and final victim. The fact that Max initially lacks commitment means that when he chooses to act, his heroism has a far greater impact then it would if he was active from the beginning.

Make the Extra Characters Significant – The set-up of the movie depicts Max’s interaction with Annie, a friendly lawyer, as she takes his cab to reach her office. In addition to foreshadowing the climax of the movie, where Max has to take action to protect her from Vincent, it allows him to develop as a character and gain our interest. We find out about his dreams of starting a limousine company, and his kindly nature is highlighted when he allows Annie to keep his favourite photograph. Annie is also a well-rounded individual, as she listens sympathetically to Max, and tells him about the various problems she faces when working on her cases. This ensures that the audience wants the two to start a relationship, creating a reason for them to continue watching in the hope that they escape and get their happy ending.

Another character who manages to be memorable in spite of a lack of screen time is Felix, the mobster who has hired Vincent to carry out his various assassinations. Max meets him when he is forced by Vincent to assume his identity and find the information on the last two victims. Felix provides this exposition in the form of a monologue in which he compares himself to Santa Claus and Vincent to Black Peter, a figure who punishes naughty children.  This analogy is both childish and threatening, but manages to convey the key points effectively – Vincent’s targets represent a threat to Felix, and he is being hired to “punish” them. With his offbeat yet menacing personality and a brief mention of his family that serves to humanise him, Felix stands out as a unique and interesting character, and his delivery of the key information is highly intriguing. As a result, the information that Max and the audience need to know stands out, because it is being given in a manner that makes it worth hearing.

Make the Action Sequences Exciting – Because it focuses on characters and atmosphere in a bid to generate suspense, Collateral uses action sequences sparingly. However, when they do occur, they are intense in nature. Most of the violent scenes in the movie are due to the actions of Vincent, who casually carries out his various kills with a high level of brutality. Just after performing his second hit, Vincent returns to find that a pair of muggers have stolen his briefcase from Max. He follows them and shoots them both. Once he has retrieved the item, he notices one of the men writing in pain, and shoots again to finish him off. As well as setting up how important the briefcase is to Vincent, it shows that he reacts to setbacks with a cold efficiency, as the severity of his retaliation is unnecessary, even given the obnoxious nature of the victims and the potential repercussions of their theft. In a very brief and one-sided burst of action, the extent of the threat which Vincent poses to Max is made disturbingly clear.

After the slow-building tension of the first two acts, Collateral climaxes with an elaborate chase sequence, as Max tries to rescue Annie from Vincent. As Vincent cuts the electricity at Annie’s office, the darkness increases the tension of the scene, as it makes it harder for Annie to get out, and places her at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Vincent uses mirrors to track his target, and this allows him to move without her knowing where he is and what he is doing. Vincent’s increased freedom in this confined space forces Max to react quickly if he wants to save Annie. In chase scenes, the villain should usually have an ability that makes it harder for the heroes to defeat them, and Vincent’s experience and composure make him a formidable opponent.

Conclusion

Collateral is a textbook example of how to make an efficient and engrossing thriller. It uses the classic formula of an initially uncommitted protagonist threatened by a unique and unyielding enemy and forced to take action. However, it does so in an original manner, with its focus on a well-developed lead character and an implacable but fascinating foe. The supporting cast is memorable, and the scenes are directed well, allowing for the escalation in tension that is integral to the story. Overall, it proves that the simplest thriller concepts can be the most impressive if they are well written and contain great characters.

Script To Film - Jurassic Park

The screenplay for Jurassic Park can be found below:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Jurassic-Park.html

It is a first draft, and is therefore substantially different from the finished film, bearing a greater resemblance to the source material. The changes made between the script and the finished film form the basis of this post.

Who Wrote It?

The film was written by Michael Crichton and David Koepp, and based on the novel by Michael Crichton.

Who Directed It?

Jurassic Park was directed by Steven Spielberg.

How Long Is It?

The film is 121 minutes long, including end credits.

What’s It About?

The eccentric tycoon John Hammond (Played by Richard Attenborough) invites a pair of scientists, Dr Alan Grant (Played by Sam Neil) and Dr Ellie Sattler (Played by Laura Dern), to visit and endorse his pet project: Jurassic Park. Based on a tropical island, it contains dinosaurs of all kinds, brought to life through advanced cloning technology.  Other guests on the trip include rebellious mathematician Ian Malcom (Played by Jeff Goldblum) and Hammond’s two grandchildren, Tim and Lex (played by Joseph Mazello and Ariana Richards). However, when an employee tries to steal the park’s advanced technology, he inadvertently releases the dinosaurs, who begin to run amok. As Hammond, Ellie and Malcom try to find a way to contain the creatures, Grant, Tim and Lex journey across the island to find the rest of the group.

5 Key Scenes – Jurassic Park

(The Following May Contain Spoilers)

Discussions With Hammond – In the film, most of the opposition to the idea of resurrecting dinosaurs is voiced by Ian Malcom in a speech during a dinner meeting. He notes that Hammond and his scientists were “so preoccupied with whether they could, that they didn’t stop to think about whether they should”. This sequence serves two purposes. Most importantly, it prepares us for the fact that the dinosaurs will go on the rampage. It also sets up the tension between Hammond and Malcom, indicating that the two will be forced to put their animosity aside when the dinosaurs attack.

On the other hand, the script omits Malcom completely, and cuts the dinner scene. Instead, the objections to Jurassic Park are primarily voiced by Ellie, who claims that dinosaurs cannot repress their hunter instincts, and Grant, who notes that commercialising science leads to “A disregard for method” that eventually leads to the failure of the island. However, because the screenplay is focused on action, there is less emphasis on the issues regarding the cloning of dinosaurs. As a result, the characters are less developed, as their views on the matter go a long way towards defining their personalities.

T-Rex Attack – The most iconic action sequence in Jurassic Park is the Tyrannosaurus Rex attack that occurs at the halfway point of the film. At the start of this scene, the T-Rex’s arrival is signalled by a vibrating glass of water. In the script, it is signalled in a more conventional manner, as “The whole car vibrates” to signal the arrival of the dinosaur. The vibrating glass of water is more effective, as it increases the suspense. As soon as the protagonists notice what is happening to this minor object, the slow-building sense of awareness is more terrifying then the sudden attack in the original script.

This leads to the first major chase in the movie, as the T-Rex attacks the car containing Tim and Lex. The script portrays the creature as toying with the cruiser “like a dog with its bone”. This description highlights its destructive nature, as the car, and the children inside, are treated by it as a plaything. The film stays true to this description, and depicts the dinosaur in close-up from Tim and Lex’s perspective. This makes the creature even more dangerous, because it causes large amounts of damage with little effort.

Grant And The Kids - Dr. Grant is the story's central protagonist, as he has the strongest character arc out of all the main characters. At the beginning, he is opposed to the idea of having children, but looking after Tim and Lex brings out the father in him. This is highlighted in a sequence where they have to climb over a perimeter fence before the power gets turned on. It appears in both the film and the script, and there are a number of similarities between the two depictions, most notably the fact that one of the children (Lex in the script, Tim in the film) is afraid of heights. However, the risk level in the screenplay turns out to be low – the power doesn’t return. The fact that the obstacle isn’t as severe as it is in the film reduces the pressure placed on Dr Grant, and therefore ensures that the episode has less of an impact on him and his relationship with Tim and Lex.

One notable scene in the movie depicts the three hiding in a tree for the night. They crack a number of jokes about dinosaurs, and Grant promises to watch for dinosaurs and protect the children. However, in the original script, the children fall asleep the instant they settle down in the tree- there are no heart-warming interactions between them and Grant. Overall, the idea of Grant being a father figure is far less prominent in the script then it is in the film.

The Final Battle – The climax of Jurassic Park depicts the protagonists taking on Velociraptors who are attacking the Island headquarters. This sequence is divided into two parts. During the first part, Tim and Lex are chased through the kitchen by two Velociraptors. In the script, they use steaks to trick the raptors into entering a walk-in freezer. In the film they also use trickery; Lex hides in an oven, and the dinosaurs mistakenly attack her reflection. However, the two children seem a bit calmer and more composed in the script. Their panic in the finished sequence increases the tension, as it emphasises the fact that they are a disadvantage and leaves the viewer wondering how they will be able to survive.

In the second part of the climax, Grant, Ellie and the children face the Velociraptors in the Visitor Centre, dangling from the giant Tyrannosaurus skeleton that is the main exhibit there. In the film, the Velociraptors are defeated by the timely arrival of a T-Rex. This represents a “payoff” following the Tyrannosaurs’ appearance in the middle of the film, because a monster that memorable should not be used for a single scene only. However, the live T-Rex does not appear in the screenplay. Instead, the raptors are defeated by Grant single-handedly, as he uses the skeleton to crush them. Whilst this cements Grant’s growth into a strong, brave hero, it seems like an easy way of defeating the implacable velociraptors. Therefore, the denouement of the film proves to be more memorable.

Hammond’s Behaviour – The screenplay retains the novel’s depiction of Hammond as an antagonist who is more concerned with making money from the theme park then he is with thinking through the risks and implications of his grand idea.  He responds to Dr. Grant’s criticism with a megalomaniacal rant in which he announces that he will persevere with his idea, and dismisses Grant as “one more negative voice in a universe of negativity”. However, the film makes him into a more likeable character. At the end, he decide to leave the island with the rest of the protagonists (albeit with a degree of reluctance) and responds to Dr Grant’s comment that he has decided not to endorse the park with a simple “So have I”. Character arcs are a convenient way to distinguish between protagonists and antagonists, and by realising that his dream cannot be maintained, the version of Hammond we see in the film is able to grow as a character and therefore remain sympathetic.

This difference in personality between is summed up with how the character is introduced in both versions. In the film, he is introduced turning up suddenly at Grant and Ellie’s dig.  His primary motive for turning up at the location incognito is for the sense of adventure. This establishes Hammond’s energetic personality, but also shows that he is overconfident, as he nonchalantly helps himself to champagne from the fridge. Conversely, in the script, he is not introduced until the protagonists arrive on the island. This makes him into a more mysterious figure with a greater sense of power, and establishes how dependant he is on his park. In the screenplay, Hammond’s fanatical obsession with making the park successful ensures that he will be blind to the flaws in his idea, making him unable to change and ensuring that he poses an obstacle to the protagonists.

Verdict

Jurassic Park improved substantially between the first draft and the finished film. Whilst the original script has a number of strong action sequences, the finished film contains more likeable and better-developed characters, and also provides a fuller focus on the issues arising from cloning. Furthermore, it benefits immeasurably from Steven Spielberg’s direction, as he wrings the maximum levels of tension out of the various action sequences, increasing the jeopardy levels through his focus on the small details, which are expressed through close-ups. He also manages to give the various dinosaurs, who are the story’s most spectacular and important aspect, plenty of memorable moments, which allow them to stand out as characters in their own right. As a result of the changes made to the screenplay, Jurassic Park is an example of a summer blockbuster that can be enjoyed for both the spectacle and the characters.

Unproduced Scripts – The Microwaved Cat

So far, this blog has analysed a number of movies. All of them started life as a script, and over many months, they were slowly developed into films with the help of casts and crews of varying sizes, who refined the writer’s vision and transformed it into something which could be shown on a screen.

However, for every script that gets made into a movie, dozens remain unproduced. A large number of unproduced scripts can be found on sites such as http://www.simplyscripts.com/ and they can be just as valuable to trainee screenwriters as anything that has made it to the cinema. Today, we will be looking at The Microwaved Cat, a script which can either by accessed via SimplyScripts, or through following the link below.

http://www.simplyscripts.com/scripts/TheMicrowavedCat.pdf

Who Wrote It?

Vincent Cailly                 

How Long is it?

The script is 82 pages long.

What’s it About?

Patrick Gambetta is a man who specialises in filing frivolous lawsuits against any business that can generate injury. His Litigious ways have become a focal point of New Jersey’s local elections. One of the candidates comes up with a novel plan to discredit him. He books Gambetta into a family hotel ran by Dave Grinder. Grinder wants to replace his hotel with a larger one, so he has to do everything he can to prevent himself from getting sued. Therefore, he hires an actress, Lawrence Dansley, to be part of a scheme to keep Gambetta under control. However, as Gambetta spends time in the hotel, he and Dansley begin to fall in love.

5 Screenwriting Lessons from the Microwaved Cat(The Following May Contain Spoiler)

Don’t Spend Too Much Time “Laying Pipe” – In his book “Save The Cat”, the screenwriter Blake Snyder coined the term “Laying Pipe” to describe the set-up that occurs during a movie’s first act. If it manages to be simple and effective, then it will engage the audience and encourage them to keep to keep reading the script. However, if it is done badly, it can be confusing and boring. In the case of The Microwaved Cat, the amount of time spent “Laying Pipe” is a serious problem. The scenes at the beginning featuring the two candidates for governor are mostly unnecessary, as the subplot vanishes when Gambetta books into Grinder’s hotel and sets off the main story. The highlight of this opening sequence is a scene where a political advisor explains to schoolchildren why frivolous lawsuits represent such a problem and why they should be stopped (The script gets its provocative title from the example of a frivolous lawsuit used in the explanation, which depicts a woman cooking her cat in a microwave and blaming the people who manufactured it). It is funny, unique, and sets up the story in a way that the rest of the opening sequence doesn’t.

Another problem is the fact that we see little of Gambetta during the first act. In fact, the focus is largely on Grinder as he tries to prepare for Gambetta’s arrival. However, Grinder is the script’s antagonist, and, by focusing on him at Gambetta’s expense, it makes Gambetta seem less developed and less sympathetic. When you have a protagonist engaged in morally questionable activities in a generally upbeat romantic comedy, you have to try and get the audience on their side as quickly as possible. Therefore, an antihero like Gambetta should be front and centre at the beginning, so that the audience may begin to develop an interest in him.

Scripts Depend on Vivid Descriptions – One of the strongest points of this script is the vivid description. This is particularly apparent at the midpoint of the script, when Gambetta and Lawrence go to a fundraiser held by Grinder and his employees. At one point, Gambetta enrols himself as a volunteer in a high-risk magic act. The sequence is written in short, simple sentences full of ellipsis. This ensures that it is tense and engaging, and the relief when Gambetta avoids injury can easily be felt by the reader.

The descriptions of the characters are pretty vague. When Gambetta is introduced, only his age is given. We know nothing about his physical appearance, and this makes it harder to envisage him as a character. However, on several occasions, minor characters such as the Hotel Bartender have their clothing and hairstyle described in elaborate detail. This ensures that they are more memorable than the protagonists, which is always a serious problem. At the very least, the main characters should be depicted just as vividly, if not more so, than the supporting cast.

Don’t Push Jokes Too Far – One of the major themes of the story is the fact that danger is everywhere and the risks of accident are always high. This is illustrated in a running gag that occurs during the second act, as Grinder takes every possible step to prevent Gambetta suing him. One method he uses to keep Gambetta happy is placing stickers over almost every item in Gambetta’s room, warning against misuse and preventing people like Gambetta from looking for ways to sue over any potential injury the product may cause. Some of these, such as a sticker on a bible saying that “This is a work of fiction: Please do not take it seriously” are clever and funny, but the joke stretches for too long, As a result, it loses a lot of its impact as the script progresses.

Make Sure We Know Who to Root For – Gambetta is a very interesting idea for a protagonist in what is essentially a lightweight romantic comedy. However, at the start of the story, he is far too unpleasant to be appealing. He lives off the proceeds of unnecessary lawsuits have destroyed hundreds of lives, and appears to feel no remorse for his actions. Eventually, when he is dining with Lawrence, Gambetta reveals a sympathetic back story – His sister was severely injured as a result of a freak accident in a shopping mall. This gives us insight into why Gambetta is so keen to expose unsafe practises, but up to this point, he hasn’t seemed like a very altruistic character, so that revelation is hard to buy. If Gambetta had shown moments of compassion earlier in the script, for example donating money to his poorer victims, then he would have been a more appealing protagonist, and the revelations about him would have not felt like a transparent attempt to make us realise that Gambetta is supposed to be the protagonist and not the antagonist.

Conversely, the antagonist, Grinder, is a bit too developed. He has a very strong motive which is developed from the outset (He wants to break away from his father’s business and develop his own vision) and a lot of focus is placed on his attempts to stop Gambetta from getting himself injured. However, he is designed to be an unsympathetic character, trying to stop Gambetta’s behaviour for entirely selfish reasons, and often behaving in highly unethical ways. In one scene, he essentially tortures Lawrence by sticking wax strips to her eyebrows and ripping them off. In spite of this, Grinder is the most prominent character in the first act, and this means that readers are likely to regard him as the protagonist instead of Gambetta. Given that the audience are supposed to sympathise with Gambetta and not Grinder, this is a big problem.

Don't Rush the Climax – The first act finishes with Gambetta’s arrival on Page 32, whilst the second act ends with Lawrence and Gambetta realising each other’s secrets on page 65. It takes another four pages of set-up to reach the courtroom climax between Gambetta and Grinder. Conventional wisdom states that the first and third acts should each last about a quarter of the script’s length, and the second act should last half. The fact that the second and third acts are shorter than they should be damages the story significantly, as it ensures that Gambetta and Lawrence’s character development is rushed.

Furthermore, Gambetta is a very passive character in the climax, with his lawyer doing the talking for him. Whilst Lawrence demonstrates that she has as she admits her love for Gambetta, Gambetta remains a static character. His decision to drop his lawsuit is presented as a major change, but he still gets what he wants (Lawrence’s hand in marriage) without having to assess his beliefs or realise how wrong his actions have been. As a result, the potential to give Gambetta a strong and interesting character arc goes unfulfilled.

Verdict              

This script has several positive features. Some of the jokes are genuinely funny, and the story is unique and interesting. However, it is very rushed, with too much focus on the set-up at the expense of the other two acts. The characters, Gambetta in particular, are underdeveloped and not likeable enough to be engaging. This feels a bit like a first draft that, with a few big changes, could easily be turned into an enjoyable Hollywood comedy.

5 Screenwriting Lessons - Boyhood

Who Wrote It?

The film’s director Richard Linklater wrote the script with the help of his cast. He came up with the story and scenes, whilst the film’s four stars (Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Lorelei Linklater and Ethan Hawke) contributed to the dialogue and characterisation.

How Long Is It?

Boyhood is 166 minutes long, including credits.

What is it about?

Set over a 12-year period from 2002 to 2013, this film follows a boy called Mason (Played by Ellar Coltrane), as he grows from a six year-old into a college student. The twists and turns of life affect him and his family- older sister Samantha (Played by Lorelei Linklater), single mother Olivia (Played by Patricia Arquette), and Mason Sr.(Played by Ethan Hawke), her ex-husband and the children’s father - in a number of ways.

5 Screenwriting Lessons- Boyhood(The Following May Contain Spoilers) 

Make Your Film Relatable - Instead of using title cards and other conventional means of pinpointing specific years, Boyhood depicts the passage of time through the use of pop culture relevant to each specific year. The Gameboys of 2002 are steadily replaced with Nintendo Wii Consoles and iPhones, and Samantha’s obsession with singing Britney Spears songs as a child is replaced with a teenage obsession over Lady Gaga. The film is primarily aimed at an audience who remember most, if not all, of the crazes of the period, and the use of these ensures that the film seems more realistic.

However, it is more than a mere time capsule for America in the 2000’s, as the relationships between family members are depicted in a manner that will resonate with those who don’t remember the period. Mason and Samantha fight constantly, especially in their younger years, but still love each other. Olivia is a harried single mother who manages to find a stable career and support her children. Mason Sr. is an uncommitted dreamer who regrets missing out on his children growing up. These situations are similar to those experienced by everyone at one point or another in their lives, regardless of time and place.  This ensures that the film will remain relevant, even as the period it chronicles slips into the past.

Make Your Characters Unique - As the film progresses, Mason begins to develop an obsession with photography, and soon begins to see it as a future career. This interest in chronicling the little details that define everyday life serve as a metaphor for the film. At the same time, it fits the protagonist perfectly, as he is shown to be a keen observer of life from the beginning, peering out of the bedroom window to observe arguments between his mother and father. This ensures that Mason’s interest appears to stem from the character rather than the writer, and therefore contributes to the film’s authentic tone.

Mason Sr. is also defined by creative interests. He is a songwriter, and enjoys singing and playing instruments. On a couple of occasions, he writes and performs songs that reflect the situations that he is involved in. Like Mason’s interest in photography, this reflects the themes of the film and also helps define his character. He is kind and perceptive, but immature and more committed to enjoying himself then succeeding in life- he sees music as a hobby rather than a profession. Whilst these traits and interests are relatively common, the way that they are combined in the development of Mason Sr. is unique in the universe of the movie, and serves to make him seem more developed and memorable.

Antagonists Should Be Well-Developed, But Easy to Understand - The nearest thing that Boyhood has to a human antagonist is Olivia’s second husband Bill (Played by Marco Perella). Bill is initially portrayed as a charismatic college professor, but we soon find out that he is a strict stepfather with a secret alcohol addiction. However, mundane actions like forcing his children to do chores are soon followed by far more aggressive acts such as forcing Mason to have a very short haircut, and before long, he is outright abusing Olivia and Mason. Because Bill starts out as a reasonably normal parent, his shift towards violent behaviour feels more realistic and unnerving.

However, there are instances when a character’s nature cannot be revealed slowly, so has to be demonstrated in a clear and concise manner. In the second half of the movie, the focus shifts towards Mason’s school life, so Olivia’s next failed relationship with the soldier Jim (played by Brad Hawkins) is not depicted in much detail. It would be repetitive to depict Jim descending towards the same extreme behaviour as Bill, and therefore, he is a less prominent character. However, in Jim’s most significant interaction with Mason, we see that he is a bad-tempered control freak, just as Bill was. This quickly establishes that his marriage to Olivia will not last, and ensures that the film can focus more on Mason, and less on the breakdown of Olivia and Jim’s relationship. Therefore, making a character easy to understand is highly important, especially if they play a minor role in the story.

Change Can Lead to Interesting Character Development - The protagonists of Boyhood see their life change numerous times. They move house, go to new schools, gain new jobs and move in and out of relationships. In many respects, the character’s basic personalities remain intact throughout. Mason observes life with as much fascination as he did when he was younger, Samantha retains her interest in popular music, and Olivia remains the same caring but firm mother she was when her children were still little. However, they have also taken on a more realistic and pragmatic approach towards life. The changes that have occurred over the twelve year period lead to the protagonists reassessing their outlook, and the various decisions they make as a result of this shape the film

The focus on change is highlighted in a minor subplot involving Olivia. At one point in the middle of the film, she advises a repairman to take up Adult Education classes at the college where she teaches. Towards the end of the film, she takes Mason and Samantha to a restaurant to celebrate Mason’s forthcoming departure for college, and they meet the repairman again- he is now the restaurant’s manager. Whilst a character rising this far in such a short period might seem far-fetched to some viewers, it fits one of the film’s key ideas– people and circumstances can change in ways both expected and unexpected.

Make Your Themes Clear Through Dialogue - At an early stage of the film, Mason Sr. takes his children bowling. When Mason struggles to avoid ending up with a gutter ball, his father tells him “You don’t want the bumpers. Life doesn’t give you bumpers”. The quote succeeds in establishing a major theme of the film- life is unpredictable and you have to take everything you face in your stride. However, it fits the character saying it, and therefore feels like plausible dialogue.

The fact that dialogue can highlight a film’s message is made clear at the end of the film, when Olivia is saying goodbye to Mason. During her speech to him, Olivia breaks down in tears, as she believes that she has experienced every significant event in life. On the other hand, Mason tells her that she still has plenty of time to live. He has taken on a more optimistic outlook, and is aware that life can change radically in a very short period of time. Again, dialogue that could sound false in another film feels authentic here, as we have seen the characters grow over time, and can agree with Mason’s claims. The best dialogue can highlight characters and themes with intelligence and subtlety, and the dialogue in Boyhood succeeds in doing this.

Verdict

Boyhood is a splendid example of how to write a coming-of-age movie well. The film can drag at times, particularly during the depictions of Mason’s high school life, but it always feels unique, insightful and realistic. The characters are vividly depicted yet nuanced, the story is simple but effective, and the dialogue is convincing and often intelligent. It highlights how collaboration between writers and actors can lead to a successful script.

5 Screenwriting Lessons - Edge of Tomorrow

Who Wrote It?

Dante Harper (Uncredited), Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, Simon Kinberg (Uncredited), Hiroshi Sakurazaka (Writer of the Source Material)

How Long is It?

Edge of Tomorrow is 113 minutes long, including end credits.

What's It About?

"Edge of Tomorrow" is based on the Japanese Light Novel "All You Need is Kill" by Hiroshi Sakurazaka. The film centres around William Cage (Played by Tom Cruise), an army major drafted into a war between humans and an alien species called "Mimics". Placed on the front line with the misfit J Squad, he is killed in a crucial battle, but instead of dying, he wakes up at the start of the day, going through the battle again. Realising that he is stuck in a time-loop, Cage teams up with the war hero Rita Vrataski (Played by Emily Blunt), who had a similar experience during a previous campaign. Cage now has to use the knowledge and abilities he gains from his period in the time-loop to defeat the Mimics.

5 Screenwriting Lessons You Can Learn From "Edge of Tomorrow"

(The Following May Contain Spoilers)

Keep It Simple - One of the best things about Edge of Tomorrow is its plot, which is unique but easy to follow. It is a good example of a high-concept movie, taking two elements familiar from other films and merging them to make something different. The two elements Edge of Tomorrow uses are the Time Loop (most notably used in Groundhog Day and Source Code) and the War With Aliens (Most notably used in Aliens and Starship Troopers). Both tropes are effective on their own, and combining them is a good idea, as it allows emphasis on their shared aspects, such as the similarity of the time-loop to the ability to restart a video game when you lose. The mechanics of video games are rarely exploited in films, and this allows the combination of the Sci-Fi and War genres to be effective.

Edge of Tomorrow follows the Three-Act structure. The First Act depicts Cage being drafted into battle and fighting for the first time. The Second Act begins with him relieving the battle for the first time, and covers his period in the Time Loop. In the Third Act, Cage loses his ability to reset time, and has to use all the skills he has accumulated to defeat the Mimics in one last battle. This allows the story to be simple and coherent, and ensures that it can be understood by as many viewers as possible, in contrast to the complicated, confusing plots often seen in Sci-Fi action movies.

Develop Characters - Edge of Tomorrow is primarily focused on action. The only information we get about Cage and Vrataski are details that pertain directly to the plot, such as the fact that Cage can't stand the sight of blood and Vrataski was instrumental in a major victory for the humans due to her ability to reset the day of battle. Information about their past is generally omitted. The same thing applies to the antagonists- We never know for sure why the Mimics invade, and keeping it a mystery increases their threat.

In the few instances where a character's backstory is brought up, it is used to demonstrate how much Cage has learnt in the time-loop, and not to develop the characters. A particularly frustrating example of this is when Cage explains his secret to the members of the J Squad, and reveals that one of them has assumed the identity of a dead comrade and is fighting on his behalf. If the soldier and his relationship with Cage had been properly developed, then this interesting piece of information would have meant something, However, it is soon forgotten about. As a result of the focus on the action over the characters, the protagonists and supporting cast are not developed enough to be as interesting as they should be.

Use Scenery - The action in the first half of the the movie is mostly confined to the army's training base in Heathrow and the French beaches where the battle takes place. However, in the second half, a wider range of locations are used, such as London and Paris. They are depicted simply, but in a manner that conveys the effect of the war. London's inhabitants sit in pubs, waiting for the Mimics to arrive. The devastated remains of Paris provide a striking location for the film's climax. This makes the alien threat seem more plausible and threatening, as it creates an atmosphere of tension that could conceivably be felt in any war zone in today's world.

Whilst the locations are used effectively, the scenes in the French countryside at the middle of the film could have been more unique and spectacular. The action in this sequence includes a fight with a mimic atop a caravan, and a helicopter flying out of control in a small barn. Both of these set pieces could have been spectacular if they were extended. Props count as scenery too, and their potential should be exploited, especially in fights and chases

Play Fair - It is implied that Cage relieves the same day dozens of times, but for the sake of preserving audience interest, this is condensed to a series of montages where Cage repeatedly dies during a certain point in the day, such as the battle on the beach or his training sessions with Vrataski. However, as the story opens out, these montages are eliminated. In spite of this, it is implied that Cage relieves the various key moments in the second half of the second act over and over. When Cage and Vrataski meet the head of the human army, General Bingham (Played by Brendan Gleeson) to tell him what they now know about the Mimics, Cage reveals details that he has learned from reliving the meeting repeatedly. However, we don't see the previous attempts, and if not for Cage's comments, we wouldn't even know that there were any. This is a problem, as it cheats the audience out of scenes that could have emphasised the risks that Cage and Vrataski go through in revealing the information, and increased the tension and level of interest in the story.

Make It Seem Real - The opening sequence of Edge of Tomorrow is effective at setting up the story and the characters. Using a series of "Newscasts" from around the world, it depicts the initial invasion and the defeats and victories experienced by the human army. It introduces the protagonists (Cage and Vrataski) and the antagonists (The Mimics), quickly and concisely, and creates a feeling of realism and immediacy. This makes us interested to know what happens next.

The realism also extends to the rest of the film. The battle which Cage continually relives takes place in Normandy, the site of the Allied invasion of France in World War 2, and Vrataski used her ability to rest time in a battle at Verdun, the location of a number of key campaigns in World War 1. The use of locations associated with previous wars allows the conflict seen here to gain a greater significance. Whilst alien invasions are not likely of occurring in the real world, Edge of Tomorrow has to make the war with the Mimics seem realistic - the viewer has to imagine that this it what it would look like if aliens invaded for real. By using important events from the past to inspire its depiction of the near-future, the film succeeds in doing this.

Verdict

Edge of Tomorrow is a good example of an action-based summer blockbuster. It uses its relatively short runtime well, providing us with an engaging story and a number of intense battle scenes. Although the script was revised numerous times during production (Which is why the initial writer, Dante Harper, is uncredited) and the film underwent numerous reshoots, you wouldn't think that was the case watching the finished film, as it flows perfectly and is easy to understand. Although I think that the characters should have been better developed, this was still an enjoyable movie, and provides a number of good lessons on how to write an action-adventure film that is unique and unusual, whilst still providing a good amount of blockbuster entertainment.