DZ-108: The Emotional Event with Judith Weston — Transcript

Could we possibly throw the writers a bone here and say that the emotional event that they have put in this scene through the dramatization, through what the actors are actually doing, has survived the possible producer pass of make this sexy?

Well, sure. Sure.

Hi, I'm Chas Fisher.

And I'm Stu Willis.

And welcome to Draft Zero, a podcast where two Aussie filmmakers try to work out what makes great screenplays work.

And in this episode, we are going to be talking about the emotional event. We are joined by Judith Weston, a teacher of directors, actors and writers, and she has been teaching since 1985. Her students include Taika Waititi, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarratu, Ava DuVernay, Boots Riley and Alma Harrell. Her books, Directing Actors and The Film Director's Intuition, are absolute classics. They are books that I read very early on in my career and I still reread. And not only have they influenced my career, I would say they've influenced just the way I live my life. So, welcome to the show, Judith. We are so very excited to have you here.

Thank you so much for inviting me.

So good. So, the kind of overall thing that we're going to be talking about is the emotional event, which is an idea that in the 25th anniversary edition of Directing Actors, you kind of brought a little bit more to the forefront. It's been there in your work. And we're going to be talking about scenes from Oppenheimer, Casino Royale, and Past Lives. So, the idea of the emotional event is something that struck me as a director, but I think it absolutely applies to screenwriters as as well. And look, it's very common for people to talk about like a scene needing to have a plot event, that the scene needs to turn. And the idea of looking at your scene and not looking at it from a plot perspective, but looking at it from an emotional perspective, what is an emotional event is a really useful one for screenwriters, I think, but actors and directors as well. So can you kind of give us a little bit of an introduction into what you think of as an emotional event?

Okay, I will try. The thing is, what actually really excited me about doing this podcast with you is that the best way to describe it is through examples. People find it abstract somehow or hard to grasp. And in fact, that's why I wrote this 25th anniversary edition of Directing Actors, because in the original Directing Actors, I referred to emotional events. But all that time After that, I was teaching. I've been teaching for 35 years. And as I taught, and after the book came out, I would require it, people had to read it before they took the workshop, Acting for Directors, which was my flagship workshop for a long time. And when I would ask them, you know, what they were hoping to learn, they would say, you know, I'm a little bit confused about emotional event. And everybody said that. They said it over and over. And I also taught classes that had directors and actors in them, and that sometimes they would rehearse outside of class and bring in the scene. And then at the end, I would ask people, you know, how the rehearsal went and what they worked on. And then I would say to the directors, so what's the emotional event? They would all sort of hit their heads and go, oh, I knew she was going to ask me that, but they hadn't been able to figure it out. And so I just always knew that I had to make this clearer somehow. So I really tried to do that in this 25th anniversary edition. And then also my other book, Film Director's Intuition, just this past fall, I was asked to do a audiobook version. And that's coming out April 30th. That's going to be dropped on April 30th. But I did a lot of rewriting on the film director's intuition because that was already 20 years old too. And really, really trying to delve into this because I do believe that an understanding of emotional event is the thing that makes a person a director instead of just a person who points a camera at something. something. And certainly, Mike Nichols talks about it all the time. And Sidney Lumet, you know, all the great directors who were also teachers, who also had an interest in mentoring younger directors, they always talked. Another way of thinking of it is what the scene is about.

I think what's interesting, because we have talked about the idea of scenes having a thematic question, which is what is the scene about, but on a thematic level. And I think what is the emotional event is another, is like, what is the scene about emotionally? And that is different from a scene being thematic, which can be a little bit more intellectual. You know, what strikes me about your work and the way you think about directing actors is it puts so much emphasis on relationships. Yeah. And I think that is such a powerful tool for writers to go, because it's very easy to get caught up in thinking of your characters as individuals, as opposed to people within kind of a web of relationships. And I think what's really useful of the emotional event is, from my understanding of it, I always think of it as, what is the relationship change between these two or more characters?

Exactly. How is the relationship different at the end of the scene than it was at the beginning? That's the simplest way to put it. you know what changes in the emotional temperature and it could be a very small change and it could be a change in power change in power status and it could be a change in intimacy i mean those are two usual changes either it's a change in intimacy they become more intimate or they become more estranged or a change of power relationship those are kind of the usual ways and every scene has to to have one if it doesn't have it it's got to go yeah.

And that's where it's it's going to be hugely valuable for writers and not just directors and actors like sue and i have done 100 odd episodes now and we have looked in at discrete character tools like what's the character question of a scene usually looking at the protagonist of the scene how to best dramatize character character motivations from a writing perspective and we've done what we call status transactions and tactics and all those things were different, I guess, dials or aspects that I was reading in your book, especially the chapter on the emotional event. But- I don't think we've ever just taken this big step back and gone, all right, in a scene, how does the relationship between these characters change? You know, having read your book, I'm now like, that's a really obvious question to ask, but I was not asking it really beforehand, unless Stu, who had read your book, was forcing me to.

I mean, I think your comment about every scene should have it. This will help transition a little bit towards talking about Oppenheimer. Right. Because I think what you're talking about, like, what struck me, and I've used an excerpt in one of my, I occasionally teach, and in my class in exposition, I actually play a little clip of you talking about every scene needs an emotional event.

Anytime you find yourself saying about a scene, this is for information, this is to help the audience understand the plot. Or, oh, here's a real red flag. Anytime you find yourself saying about a scene, this is a pretty straightforward scene. then all that means is you've got a lot more work to do you've got a lot more work to do to uncover the subtext of that scene in order for the plot events to have a scene to work or in order for the information to get uh put across to the audience there has to be an emotional event in the scene especially.

I don't think you use the word especially but but the emphasis I'm putting on it is especially scenes that you think is expository. If you think the scene is just there to give the audience information, then you need to look into it further and find out what the emotional event is. And what struck me in prepping for this, when we decided to do Oppenheimer is it's a film that it's got so much information.

So much information and.

Makes it emotional. Like it was more successful for me in that regard than, than Chaz. I mean, I mean, he still liked it. I just really liked it. And part of it was like, yeah, it takes so much information and makes it emotional. And I think that's why it somehow resonated with a lot of people because of the emotional quality, not because we're listening to a lecture from Oppenheimer about physics, but the fact that somehow there's this emotional subtext to what he's saying about physics.

Yeah. We polled our patrons in selecting the films, but when we came to actually selecting the scenes, you were part of those initial emails back and forth, Judith, where we were going, do we do three scenes from each film, five scenes from each film? And finally, reason prevailed and we picked one scene from each film.

But this is a perfect one. This is just fantastic. I'm so glad you chose this one. I love it. I had so much fun preparing for this. I really did. I read it over and over and I watched the movie again. And I should say, I come to Oppenheimer with some baggage because I had watched, there was a TV series back 10 more years ago called Manhattan. So I came to that feeling like that was the real Los Alamos. And the first time I watched Oppenheimer on the big screen, I was a little bit distracted because when I got to Los Alamos, I was thinking, that's not the way it was.

You described me an experience that Chaz and I call, that's not how time travel works, because you're so used to the rules of another film that you can't help and bring that baggage.

That's not what happened at Los Alamos.

Yeah, yeah. So we're going to, at your request, we're going to be reading the parts of the script.

Let me put it my way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I asked them if they would mind reading the script aloud. And then I asked them not to prepare. I asked them to decide among themselves who's going to read which. But not to read it in a monotone, not to read it deliberately uninflected, but to read it like they're two men talking, not like it's a colonel and a physicist talking, but a little bit slower than usual conversation. And I just find that very useful to go a little bit lower at first, because you can let the words hit you a little bit.

Yeah. I mean, I'm just going to discuss this a little bit before we dive into it.

Yes. Okay.

Because Chas and I had a script reading for one of our projects on Monday. One of my friend is doing their master's and I was like, oh, a bunch of film students might be excited to do a feature read-through. And we sent them the script and with some notes, but said, look, we don't expect you to prepare. It's really just there if you're feeling anxious and want to prepare, but we'd prefer you didn't Because we just basically wanted them to be in the experience in real time as the characters, because it's really about us sitting back and listening to it and going, oh, that lands, that doesn't land. And if they're prepared, they might be overselling something or underselling something or playing a moment as informed by a moment in the future, if that makes sense. So, it's not emotionally true to the moment. moment, but I was curious about your reasons for doing it, because we found it very valuable and it was interesting that basically at the same time you had said something similar about us. So what is the kind of the thinking, you know, is it just to let the words hit you? What is, what are some of those usefulness if people are doing their own reading?

Well, when I'm doing it in a class, I say, you know, just let the words live in the air. That's the only way that I think of it, you know, because I don't want to intellectualize it. And okay, I'll be honest, it's to get away from thinking about result, you know, to think about whether you're doing a good job of performing.

Yeah, great.

Amazing. Thank you.

And also, you know, and it's for the audience here, so they can hear it. I'm assuming some people listen to your podcast in their cars, right?

So- Some crazy people listen to it at three times. speed we had one listener going i finished this in the episode and we're like it came out half an hour ago and he's like yeah i listened to it at three times speed all.

Right well then they will defeat me.

With my.

With my little plan here but yeah they won't have the script in front of them so i you know in order for me to talk about it and to hear it out loud.

All right so and just before we go to the reading you've also asked us for oppenheimer and past lives to not read the The big print or stage directions, as you call them, or action lines, we're just going to be focusing on the dialogue in terms of the read.

You guys call it, is that what you guys call big print? We call it narrative or since I'm from theater, I call it stage direction.

Yeah, there's a story that once upon a time in our early television industry, it was literally the action lines were in all caps or something like that or in a different font. And so it was the big print. It was literally a bigger print.

But it's only in Australia.

And it's just stuck.

No, no, I mean, well, that's how it happens. That's how a lot of film jargon.

Like, you know, calling wooden pegs C-47s. It's made its way to Australia, but the first time I heard it was working with American crews.

If I see a stage direction that I think needs to be read, I will read it.

Oh, great.

But most of them don't.

All right, Oppenheimer.

If the Nazis have a bomb. We have a 12-month head start. 18. How could you possibly know that? We've got one hope. All America's industrial might and scientific innovation connected here. Secret laboratory. Keep everyone there until it's done.

I mean, it's obviously the best picture winner and a lot of people saw it, but this is the story of Oppenheimer's role in the development of the atomic bomb in World War II. And it's specifically, we're looking at a scene where the US Army Colonel Leslie Groves, who's played by Matt Damon, effectively is recruiting Oppenheimer to be the director of the Los Alamos laboratory. So this is the scene where they meet for the first time. And maybe this is a little bit too early to say this, but when it struck me reading it was that that Mike Nichols line about, you know, every scene's like a seduction or an interrogation. And I felt like this scene was a little bit like a seduction, but that's the, that's kind of the scene is, is Groves coming in and talking to Oppenheimer.

All right, fire away, Steve.

Dr. Oppenheimer, I'm Colonel Groves. This is Lieutenant Colonel Nichols. Get that dry cleaned.

If that's how you treat a Lieutenant Colonel, I'd hate to see how you treat a humble physicist.

If I ever meet one, I'll let you know.

Ouch.

Hitters of combat all over the world, but I have to stay in Washington.

Why?

I built the Pentagon. The brass likes it so much they made me take over the Manhattan Engineer District.

Which is?

Don't be a smartass. You know damn well what it is. You and half of every physics department across America. That's problem number one.

I thought problem number one would be securing enough uranium ore.

1,200 tons. Bought the day I took charge.

Processing?

Just broke ground at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Now I'm looking for a project director.

And my name came up.

Nope. Even though you brought quantum physics to America. That made me curious.

What have you found out?

You're a dilettante, womaniser, suspected communist.

I'm a New Deal Democrat.

I said suspected. Unstable, theatrical, egotistical, neurotic.

Nothing good. Not even he's brilliant, but...

Brilliance is taken for granted in your circles, so no. Only one person said anything good, Richard Tolman. He thinks you've got integrity, but Tolman strikes me as someone who knows science better than people.

Yet here you are. You don't take much on trust.

I don't take anything on trust. Why don't you have a Nobel Prize?

Why aren't you a general?

They're making me one for this.

Maybe I'll have the same luck.

A Nobel Prize for making a bomb.

Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.

So how would you proceed?

You're talking about turning theory into a practical weapons system faster than the Nazis.

Who have had a 12-month head start?

18.

How could you possibly know that?

Our fast neutron research took six months. The man they've undoubtedly put in charge will have made that leap instantly.

Who do you think they put in charge?

Werner Heisenberg. He has the most intuitive understanding of atomic structure I have ever seen.

You know his work?

I know him. Just like I know Walter Both, von Weissacher, Diebner. In a straight race, the Germans win. We've got one hope.

Which is?

Anti-Semitism.

What?

Hitler called quantum physics Jewish science. Said it right to Einstein's face. Our one hope is that Hitler's so blinded by hate, he's denied Heisenberg proper resources. Because it will take vast resources. Our nation's best scientists working together. Right now, they're scattered.

Which gives us compartmentalisation.

All minds have to see the whole task to contribute efficiently. Poor security may cost us the race. Inefficiency will. The Germans know more than us anyway.

The Russians don't.

Remind me, who are we at war with?

Someone with your past doesn't want to be seen downplaying the importance of security from our communist allies.

Point taken, but no.

You don't get to say no to me.

It's my job to say no to you when you're wrong.

You've got the job now?

I'm considering it.

I'm starting to see how you got your reputation. My favorite response, Oppenheimer couldn't run a hamburger stand.

I couldn't, but I can run the Manhattan Project.

Such a long scene. Let's stop for a second. The one thing that I try to do first is break it into beats, okay? You know, when I'm trying to understand a scene, it helps me, you know, start to get a handle on it. And I think what you've just said is, oh, it's the end of the first sub beat of the third beat. So let's go back again and read the first beat. I'm going to say that I think that the first beat goes until Oppenheimer's line, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Okay. And I'm going to say that's the first beat of the scene. You know, I'm glad you brought up Mike Nichols' suggestion that the emotional advantage of a scene is either a seduction, a negotiation, or a fight. You could see this as a seduction, but I sort of see it as a chess match. I see them both making points. I certainly think Oppenheimer wants the job. And his line when he says, oh, what's the Manhattan Engineer District? You know, of course, he knows very well what it is. And so certainly he wants the job. But, you know, there's something about this first beat where they spar with each other. It's more like banter or sparring, or I thought of it as a chess match. And then when I went back and looked at the scene again, I saw, you know, Groves comes in the room and sits down. And Oppenheimer pulls up a chair across from him. It's about five feet. It's big enough for a chess table in between them. It is. So, it's not getting too close. It's not invading somebody's personal space, but it's face-to-face on the same level.

It's what in fencing we would call being in wide measure. So, it's far enough just to be able to touch the person, but not too close that you're really putting yourself too much at risk.

Okay. Okay. Great. But they each get wins. They win back and forth. worth. And Oppenheimer lets him win sometimes. So just let's read this first beat again and just see how that goes. And I will read the stage direction about tossing his uniform jacket to the, that does matter. So I'll read.

Dr. Oppenheimer, I'm Colonel Groves. This is Lieutenant Colonel Nichols.

He pulls off his uniform jacket and tosses it to Nichols.

Get that dry cleaned.

Nichols Lee.

If that's how you treat a lieutenant colonel, I'd hate to see how you treat a humble physicist.

If I ever meet one, I'll let you know.

Ouch.

Okay. Win for Groves, and Oppenheimer lets him have the win. Ouch. But Groves gets the win. Oppenheimer jumps right in. I'm going to be equal to you. I'm going to call you on how you treat people. and uh then rose calls him on that no physicists are humble and also that's a mysterious line if i ever meet one i'll let you know i think it suggests i think it's a clue to the fact that he's been meeting a lot of physicists he's been meeting a lot a lot of people have been pitching themselves for this job okay and he doesn't like a single one of them he hates physicists okay and and i I think that's something that he brings in here, you know, eat another jackass who's going to try to pitch himself. And anyway.

Yeah. Ouch. Theaters of combat all over the world, but I have to stay in Washington.

Why?

I built the Pentagon. The brass likes it so much they made me take over the Manhattan Engineer District.

Which is?

Oh, don't be a smartass. You know damn well what it is. You and half of every physics department across America. That's problem number one.

Yeah, just another thing. Problem number one. Problem number one is I have to spend time with all these jackasses.

Yeah.

Okay.

It'd be so much easier to run the Manhattan Project without physicists.

Well we'd be so no it'd be so much easier for him to be in combat yes.

Yeah theaters of combat all the way yeah.

That's what he's saying theaters of combat all over the world i'd much rather be in you know in the philippines i'd much rather be in guam i'd much rather be in um europe yeah preferably europe okay so that's where he wants to be he doesn't want to be doing any uh this washington stuff at all and he definitely doesn't want to be meeting with jackasses all trying to to tell him how smart they are.

Which is Oppenheimer's almost telling him how smart he is with the, I thought problem number one would be securing enough uranium ore. And I love just from a writing perspective that it's kind of done what we've called hook and eye, which is basically Grove says problem number one, and then Oppenheimer's dialogue starts with using the same words. It kind of connects it. So he's picking up on the problem number one and saying, actually, are you sure it's not not uranium ore?

Well, Oppenheimer takes his first win. And in terms of emotional event, that's how I'm seeing it. Oppenheimer takes his first win. He's saying, you know what? Our personalities are not the problem. The problem is beating the Germans.

And then Groves has to respond to that with, well, actually, I've got it sorted. We've already got 1,200 tons. Bought the day I took charge. I love the use of the I there because it's him establishing his bona fides in front of Oppenheimer. It's not that they have 1,200 tons. It's that he got them to do it the very first thing. Him saying to Oppenheimer, I'm not an idiot.

So now Groves is starting to approve his bona fides.

Okay?

Okay. Oppenheimer has put him in the position of proving his bona fides. That's why I say it's a win for Oppenheimer.

Yeah. Here's an interesting question. And I'd have to rewatch the scene. Do you think Groves is coming in here going, I think Oppenheimer is the best, but I need to see if he's someone I can work with? Or it's him actually assessing whether or not he's capable of the job?

Wait, what do you think?

I mean, I phrased it as a question, but as I'm reading through this, I'm like, Like, feels like Groves has basically almost said that he's met a whole bunch of physicists. He knows all of them are probably quite capable of doing the science, but he needs someone that's more than that. He needs someone who's actually going to solve the bigger project. And I think he is testing the waters to see if Oppenheimer is that person, but he also needs Oppenheimer to approve him. I thought that's what was interesting about the 1,200 tons bought the day I took charge is it's much about making Oppenheimer impressed by him. He needs Oppenheimer's approval because if Oppenheimer is the right person, if he goes in there knowing that, it's like, I actually need Oppenheimer to feel like we can be equals and work on this project.

I think he needs to find out if Oppenheimer is someone he can stand to be around.

Yeah.

Whoever this person is, they're going to be spending a lot of time together. Yeah. And that's what I think the emotional event is, is that they discover they can work together. They discover they can tolerate each other or even like each other. Okay. That's why I say it's emotional. So, but they take all the steps along the way, you know, in this little fencing match, chess match where they're getting little hits on each other. And they like that. They like to have a good sparring partner.

I really like in Judith, you identified the Nobel Prize being the first major beat in the scene. I feel like there's a minor sub beat in the next line that we're about to talk about where Grove says just broke ground at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, full stop. Now I'm looking for a project director. They both knew coming into the scene that that's what this is. is.

We both know that he knows that that's what this is about.

But finally, it's been said out loud that that's what this is. So, to me, the initial section of the scene is, like you said, the sparring, this back and forth, establishing of bona fides. And now they're actually going to talk. It comes out of subtext into text. We're now going to talk about why we're here. But I agree with you fully that there's a beat next because I feel like Oppenheimer doesn't change his approach to the interaction, to the relationship until that Alfred Noble line, because it's interesting, a lot of his lines, you can just see it visually on the page. Groves has got lots of chunks of text, multiple sentences, you know, statements, and Oppenheimer has lots of very short questions. Why? Which is processing. And my name came up. What have you found out? Like he's just, Just, you know, to Stu's point, is he trying to get information? Is he trying to, to your point, Judith, like surrender a little bit of power? There is definitely back and forth, but I feel like he's still not pushing as hard as he can yet. That he pushes a lot harder after that Alfred Noble thing. dynamite line?

Well, here's the way I put it. And that doesn't mean that it's right. You know, the way that I talk about things, I don't mean that this is the only way to talk about them, the only way to think about them, the only way to do them. And I definitely don't mean that if Christopher Nolan didn't think of them this way, he should have. I definitely don't mean anything like that. But to me, I thought this whole beat, you know, it's a getting to to know you beat but with very high powered people that want to do things fast and so they're going to test each other they're testing each other to see what the other guy is made of and why i think the first beat ends with alfred nobel invented dynamite because that is a definitive win for oppenheimer that's his definitive win and at that moment he has the job he's not trying to get the a job anymore. At that moment, he has the job. That's the way I see it. And then the next bead, Groves says, so how would you proceed? And so, the next bead, I think, is strategizing. He already has a job. They're strategizing together.

I think it's actually the first time Groves asks a question.

Oppenheimer is not trying to prove anything at all anymore. He's saying, okay, let's get to work. They're 18 months ahead of us.

And you're right. It is the first time Groves is asked a question. In a way, it's not every line, but there's a lot in that first beat of Oppenheimer asking questions, right? He's pulling information out of Groves, right? Nothing good, not even he's a brilliant butt. I mean, sometimes he's choosing to make statements, you know, and my name came up. I love that that is a statement and not a question. Oppenheimer's like, well, of course my name came up. And so- And then Groves says.

No. No. Nope.

It's like a nice little bit of win for Groves. But it is largely Oppenheimer pulling information from Groves. And as you say, part of that shift is after that definitive win from Oppenheimer, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite is, so how would you proceed? Part of the reason we know it's a job is because Groves is actually interested in what Oppenheimer has to say. And that is an emotion. That is a change in relationship. Even just going from making statements to someone to asking them questions is a bit of an emotional event. meant. How would you proceed is really interesting for that reason. They're strategizing, but it's Groves interested in what Oppenheimer has to say here.

The other thing is when I went back and watched the scene again, I roughed out where I thought the beats were just from the page. Then I went back and watched the scene again. And at this point, when Groves says, how would you proceed, Oppenheimer stands up. And that's a very smart directorial way to mark a beat change with blocking. It's physicalized, face-to-face at wide measure, and they're testing each other. I think they're both testing each other. I think, you know, Oppenheimer wants the job, but he knows that Groves wants somebody who will test him. They want the friction. They like the friction. They both work best with friction. I mean, poor Nichols, you know, he takes the coat and takes it to the dry cleaner. Groves has no respect for Nichols. He wants somebody that he can learn from. They both want to be around somebody that they can learn from, that they can sharpen their knives against. And that's what they find in that first beat. And then they get to work. Now they are working. So let's just read that beat again. So how would you proceed? And just remember in the movie, now Ebenheimer is standing up. He's not exactly pacing, but he's got a sense of activity and movement to his body.

So how would you proceed? seed.

You're talking about turning theory into a practical weapon system faster than the Nazis.

You have a 12-month head start.

18.

How could you possibly know that?

Our fast neutron research took six months. The man they've undoubtedly put in charge will have made that leap instantly.

Who do you think they put in charge?

Werner Heisenberg. He has the most intuitive understanding of atomic structure I've ever seen.

You know his work?

I know him. Just like I know Walter Boeck, von Weizsacker, Diebner. In a straight race, the Germans win. We've got one hope.

Which is anti-Semitism. What?

Hitler called quantum physics Jewish science, said it right to Einstein's face. Our one hope is that Hitler's so blinded by hate, he's denied Heisenberg proper resources. Because it will take vast resources.

Okay, right now I think it switches to the third beat. That can happen mid-speech, by the way.

Oh, really?

Yeah, so because it'll take vast resources. Okay, new beat. This is B3. Our nation's best scientists working together. Right now, they're scattered. So I'm going to say B3 is his pitch for Los Alamos.

I just love the arrogance of a guy to pitch his ranch as well. Yes. The Manhattan Project shouldn't face itself.

Exactly. I happen to know a place that would be perfect. So right now, he's the best minds. He's talking about the Jewish brain drain from Europe, because of the persecution and the Holocaust. And he says, we have got them, but they're scattered, and we've got to put them in one place. And then Groves brings up this compartmentalization. So let's start reading that. Our nation's best scientists working together. Just start from there.

Our nation's best scientists working together. Right now they're scattered.

Which gives us compartmentalization.

All minds have to see the whole task to contribute efficiently. Poor security may cost us the race, inefficiency will. The Germans know more than us anyway.

The Russians don't.

Remind me, who are we at war with?

Someone with your past doesn't want to be seen downplaying the importance of security from our communist allies.

Point taken. But no.

You don't get to say no to me.

It's my job to say no to you when you're wrong.

You've got the job now?

I'm considering it.

I'm starting to see how you got your reputation. My favorite response? Oppenheimer couldn't run a hamburger stand.

I couldn't, but I can run the Manhattan Project.

Okay, now there's a shift. Now, this line, I'm starting to see how you got your reputation. Another mysterious line. I mean, it looks like he's a little bit of a put-down of Oppenheimer, but no, he likes that about him. Because he's talking about both the reputations, because Groves has a reputation for arrogance, too. And we've seen it in the scene when he throws the jacket at a lieutenant colonel, that he has a reputation for arrogance. He comes in there, he loosens his tie, he puts his arm up on a bookshelf or another chair, saying, you have a reputation for arrogance, just like me. That's a bonding moment.

I actually think what's really interesting is about that you don't get to say no to me in a way to use colloquial terminology. It's kind of a bit of a shit test from Groves. He actually likes that Oppenheimer is able to speak his mind, but it's actually a bit of a test to see if Oppenheimer is going to wither a little bit. it like in in my interpretation groves needs someone who's going to speak his mind and because they need the win like they're fighting a war and trying to beat the nazis they don't need someone who's going to necessarily follow the party line in in a way so him saying you don't get to say no to me and i would say yes i do um it's actually a win groves saying so you've got the job now question mark it's actually you've definitely got the job now yeah right like it's like that's the The emotional event there is that acceptance of like, that's a good thing.

And then the third part of the third beat is when he goes to the blackboard. That's the stage direction here. He goes to the blackboard, and that's how it's staged. He goes to the blackboard. There's a way to balance these things.

So that's where we stopped him when we did the big read-through.

Yeah.

Because you said that this is kind of moving into the last part of the- This is like.

I was thinking beat three C.

But in terms of the is there any more emotional event in this third part or it is the reason we instinctively stopped because we actually had reached the emotional event you know they they started out sparring and then groves opens a window like opens a door for oppenheimer to pitch and then this third bit is them going like actually still sparring but agreeing essentially Essentially that he's got the job, that they're going to work together.

I'm just looking for what happens. The first beat, they're sparring. They're fighting. They like to spar with each other. In the second beat, they're strategizing. That's different. They're strategizing. I do. It was great that you noticed that I hadn't noticed this, that in the first beat, Oppenheimer is asking the questions and the second beat, Groves is. I mean, because Oppenheimer knows physics and Groves doesn't, right? right? But Groves knows strategy. They're actually starting to work. And so, Groves is asking him questions and Oppenheimer is not saying, look at what he's not saying. He's not saying, well, I'll tell you that if you give me the job. He's not saying that. He's getting to work. But then the third thing, which has been on his mind from the beginning, is he wants to get all these scientists and he wants to bring them to Los Alamos.

Yeah.

And my interpretation, Chas, of your point about the, is this the end of the emotional event I mean, I just see that the next section is actually ending from a page, a scene numbering count at the top of scene 67. As he pitches the idea, we start seeing it being built, right? And then it ends with Oppenheimer saying, welcome to Los Alamos. And they're there. So, the emotional, like, the end of that kind of beat is the success. Like, the pitch worked. The change in relationship is they built it, right? For me, the scene doesn't actually end until where, you know, we physically move space. But it's the way it's written is it's like it's a continuation of the dialogue. And as he talks and pitches the idea, we kind of see it being built. And so, we're beginning to see what he's talking about as actually happening. And then we see the success of it.

Judith, I just wanted to know, you said that line about Oppenheimer couldn't run a hamburger stand wasn't a put down. And I agree. And it's that line that gives me the feeling that you said about what is Groves coming into the scene trying to achieve? because if he had heard from someone Oppenheimer couldn't run a hamburger stand and believed it, he wouldn't be in that room.

Also, Gross doesn't like people who try to get a job by saying negative things about their competition. He doesn't like that kind of man at all.

Hmm.

So, so those guys that say, oh, you know, he asked him about Oppenheimer and say, oh, he couldn't run a hamburger stand. That guy's out of the running.

All it's telling him is that obviously Oppenheimer, if everyone is putting down Oppenheimer, then he is obviously the best one. It's like.

Yeah, that's it. If everyone is saying he's neurotic, he's a womanizer, he's a jerk, then that means he's the guy that they all have to beat. So that's the guy I really have to see.

I'd just like to note that in this scene we're talking all about the relationship between the characters and how riveting it is and how much it's actually moving like this the scene is only three pages long but it moves you know back and forth so quickly and there's real shifts but the amount of backstory and exposition that they've worked in there is huge yeah we've worked out that they've told us that Groves built the Pentagon. They've told us that the biggest problem engineering-wise is how much uranium ore they need to get.

The issues around compartmentalization.

Security, that they're concerned as much about Russia. We've got the scientific, even though they don't really go into the science because none of us would understand it.

Let's read this last bit, which is really lots of exposition too.

And I actually do, I'm going to bore you, Chas, but I do actually want to read to the bottom of page 50.

Yeah, sure.

Because it does a really interesting, because I think part of it that the emotional event stuff that you're talking about and keeping us interested is the change in the rhythms of the dialogue that reflect the kind of the changing in the relationships between these two men.

Please believe me, I'm not bored. I was just interested why we instinctively stopped at that point. Mm.

I think it's a big- I think at this point Oppenheimer probably has won. There is a difference between just winning the point and getting the job and actually saying what we're about to say. All right.

Now he's at the blackboard. And again, you know, I watched the scene again a few times. And then in Groves' moves, he comes closer to the blackboard. He takes a chair, turns it around, and sits in front of the blackboard like a student. I mean, this is brilliantly, brilliantly blocked and brilliantly written scene. anyway so let's read the rest there's a way to balance these things starts there.

There's a way to balance these things leave the rad lab here at berkeley under lawrence met lab in chicago under sillard large-scale refining where did you say tennessee all america's industrial might and scientific innovation connected by rail focused on one goal one point in space and time coming together here now.

Here's what i have to tell you i think This conversation all took place in that room. Nolan made a very smart, I think, cinematic choice to show us what they're talking about. But in fact, this is all taking place in that room.

A secret laboratory in the middle of nowhere. Self-sufficient, secure. Equipment, housing, the works. We keep everyone there till it's done. It'll need a school, stores, a church.

Why?

If we don't let scientists bring their families, we'll never get the best. You want security? Build a town and build it fast.

Where?

Welcome to Los Alamos. There's a boys' school we'll have to commandeer and the local Indians come up here for burial rights. Other than that, nothing for 40 miles in any direction. And southeast, hundreds of miles of desert. Enough to find the perfect spot.

For?

Success. Success.

It's funny that he says success. It's for, you know, pissing bombs.

Blowing up. And I didn't think we would be getting into this section, so I didn't put the next page in our writing. But the next page is the button on the scene, which is Grove saying to Nichols, build this man a town.

Oh.

Success also works as a button in its own interesting way. You know, it's like.

Well, they're not going to use the word bomb.

Yeah.

They're using euphemisms for the word bomb all the time. They call it the gadget. They don't call it. Anyway, that's a lot of exposition, right? But what makes it work is that the scene is not about the information. It's about the relationship. It's about two men discovering that they love working with each other. and actually this relationship takes us all the way through act two of the whole. This relationship is the centering string that takes us through all of Act II, which is a lot of exposition. But the reason that it works is because it's about one central relationship, which is Oppenheimer and Groves. I'll just throw in my theories about Act I and Act III. Act III is the relationship of Oppenheimer and Strauss. And then I have this kind of crazy theory. We should move on to the next thing. But I have this kind of crazy theory about act one, which is it's kind of competing strands, two competing groups. They're the great men of science who he idolizes and also sometimes resents or fears. There's a group of them and he meets them all. So that's one group. And then women. And his compulsion, his inability to collect women notches in his belt and to pick the most difficult ones he can, you know, rainy, disturbed, unloving women, one after another. And both of those sort of as a group, women as a group, great men of science as a group, those are the relationships of the first act. And here's where I get all Freudian, that father and his father.

Yeah.

Even though we never meet them and they're never spoken of, they are implied.

Yeah. I was going to say, you get a sense that they're somewhere in there.

Well, he was sent away to school. So, you know, it's the absence of them that, you know, drives that first step.

Just a few quick straight observations for me. The connecting on that, I think that's actually as much as we were looking at the emotional event as on a scene level, right? Right. The idea of looking at an act, looking at a sequence and going, what is the core relationship here? How does that change? I actually think is a really useful tool for screenwriters.

It's an important delivery system for plot.

Yeah, but it will help connect emotion. And as we've talked about with stakes, Chas and I, we did an episode on stakes and we started realizing that stakes are about what people value and what people value is their relationship to things. So it's going to be connected to your stakes as well. All right.

All right.

Speaking of relationships that not only drive a whole act, but as Chas was pitching before, I'm stealing your thunder here, Chas.

It's about time. I keep stealing your observations that you make off mic, so go for it, Stu.

Well, you're just saying that the relationship in Casino Royale between Bond and Vespa absolutely drives the Daniel Craig Bond films for most of them, if not the whole series. is what happens in this first film. And they realized the strength of that relationship was enough to kind of keep a character that was largely a unemotional, for lack of a better word, character in previous films had no attachments and were able to realize the power of using it to to drive a whole film.

Your file shows no kills Bond, but to become a double O, it takes two. How did he die? Your contact? Don't worry. The second is... Yes. Considerably. The man was Le Chiffre. Private banker to the world's terrorists. Which would explain how he could set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. If he loses this game, he'll have nowhere to run. You're the best player in the service. The treasury has agreed to stake you in the game. But if you lose, our government will have directly financed terrorism. I will be keeping my eye on our government's money and off your perfectly formed house. You're noticed.

So, Casino Royale is the first Daniel Craig Bond film. The writing credits, I was amused to see. Now, we've got a script that was available online that has, I'm not going to say the person, but it does have a watermark on it. So, it is very clear who got this script out. But the credits on this version are a screenplay by Neil Purvis and Robert Wade, and then second set of revisions by Paul Haggis in 2005. And I lobbied quite hard for these scenes to be in part of the homework because these two scenes there, the two scenes, Bond and Vesper have just been engaged in a pretty brutal fistfight, which has ended with Bond killing a man by strangling him, in which Vesper was involved. And Vesper is an accountant. She was not a character of violence until this point in the movie. And then I just remember so strongly and I still remember these two scenes in the bathroom after that fistfight. And we were looking for, Judith, just so you know, when we try to pick our homework, we try to pick a range of films, genres, stories so that we can try and see the same tool working in different contexts. And it was so clear to me that these two scenes were there for emotional purposes. I couldn't enunciate better than that why. why and hopefully you can tell me i.

Didn't watch the whole movie again i mean i saw it when i came out but i thought well maybe it's on youtube and you know i put casino royale and that's just the first thing that comes up oh really yeah oh wow yeah so it's a real emotional center to the movie anyway i i'm going to read some of the stage directions and you know you've just mentioned the writers and i don't mean to brag on them but i don't care for them very much, and i don't think that the actors followed them okay and that's the point that i want to make with this one i.

Love a bit of controversy.

But i gotta say i loved the character vesper i loved how she was written you know their first scene where they when they meet i thought oh gosh finally a bond girl who's really smart and really is his match you know so so i think they did a a great job writing Vesper for the most part. But, well, I'll say it right away. This is an example of a scene that's written from the male gaze.

Definitely.

But not performed that way. So, I don't know, you know, whether it was the director or the actors, but those actors were so strong and they were so connected to each other that I suspect that they got together and figured some things out together. Because some of the lines are left out. So anyway, uh, Bond lets himself in on doing his tie to reveal a creased shirt. Shadow bus, he sees Vesper's gown on the floor, empty wine bottle on the table. Here's her shower running. Tired and jaded, he doesn't think too much of it, pulls off his shirt. Yes, he has been sweating. He glances back at Vesper's suite, listens to the shower running, senses something's wrong. Vesper's bathroom, he enters, can't see her, now is becoming concerned. He sees a leg protruding from the shower. He turns the corner and finds her sitting in bra and panties. That's the male gaze. I'm sorry. She's wearing a dress in the movie. You know, she's sitting there in a cocktail dress, and it's much stronger.

Yeah. It's a stronger indication that she's in shock.

Yeah. Clutching one knee to her chest, oblivious to the pelting water, James drops to the floor of the shower, throws his arm around her, and pulls her to him, letting the water run over both of them. Bon, shh. Vesper, you're all wet. Shh. That was all cut. cut. Vesper, I couldn't get the blood off. It's still under my nails. That line was changed to there's blood on my hands. I can't get it off. Bond looks at his fingers, not a trace of blood. He puts each finger in his mouth and turn, not sexually, but as if to clean them. And of course, the non-sexual aspect of it is incredibly sexy. Okay, that's what I'm talking about, the male gaze. When done, Bond says, better. Vesper says, thanks. In the movie, she doesn't say thanks. she just gets closer to him bond you cold and then he turns the hot water on and then she appreciates the unusual and charming choice that he fails to acknowledge anything odd about her behavior she rests her head on his shoulder to sit there in the warm rain not saying a word anyway so they the actors played it not about sex but about love the emotional event is that these two are falling more deeply in love. So that's what I would call the emotional event, but putting it a different way to say what it's about. Some of the writing makes it feel like it's about sex, and it's not about sex, it's about love.

Yeah. I mean, even like, she appreciates the unusual and charming choice. It's like, this character is charming. But I think that is interesting, the love thing, because I also, for me, the emotional emotional event is about shared vulnerability, you know, she is feeling vulnerable and he, He's being vulnerable with her, you know, and I think shared vulnerability is a key part of being in love, I guess.

Yeah.

I think also I agree with you, it's about love. But to me, like the how does the character relationship change? They obviously do grow closer as a result of the scene. And that's kind of the importance of the scene existing. And to Stu's point, it's definitely about shared vulnerability. But it's the first time Bond has shown like a non-romantic form of love. Like an asexual form of love, a love that is about caring and nurturing.

And that's why the big print probably feels such a smack, like such a contrast to the final film is in the film, you're saying it's asexual love, it's tenderness, where in this, they can't keep on pointing out, oh, it's non-sexual, but that's actually what makes it really sexy.

That makes it sexier than ever.

Oh, well.

Well. And it's funny, I have to mention, you know, when I saw him put his fingers in his mouth, I hadn't heard a line about there's blood on my hands because the audio wasn't good. But the gesture reminded me of when I was a child and I grew up in a cold environment in New England, back east in the US. And, you know, in the winter, little kids' hands would get cold. Sometimes my mother would, if my hands were cold, she would take them and put them under her arms. you know to warm them and that's that's what it made me think of that that he was warming her there is a you know protective you know i'm going to take care of you even if you feel like a child and there is something like that but rather than saying it's not sexual mind up what it is.

Yeah, imagine if it said, not sexually, but in a nurturing way.

As soon as you're saying it's non-sexual, you're drawing people's attention to the ways in which, which is possibly why they've done it.

Yeah.

I've had producers' notes about making stuff. Oh, this moment could be sexier. Can you make this moment sexier? And you're like, ugh. But I think, to your point, and in your books, you've talked about the magic of the as-if and how that's useful for direction. We've read, obviously, over 100 episodes, we've read a lot of different people's scripts, and we've looked at so-called unfilmables and sometimes lines like he you know warms a hand like he's a parent comforting a child is actually really effective in a screenplay as well because you're giving the you're engaging the imagination of the actor rather than just simply describing what you see you're giving them something to play with and i think that can be a really, powerful tool again i mean this is me just plugging your book but it's like that's one of of the reasons I think the book is really useful for actors, because you sit there and go, in a way, the script is the first director of the actors. Sometimes actors will read a screenplay before they even have a chance to talk to the director. So, the words the writer is using are going to inform how an actor is potentially going to approach the role. And so, using some of these things that you've talked about as words on the page can be really quite powerful.

I do know that the line, she appreciates the unusual and charming choice in that he fails to acknowledge anything odd about her behavior, if they just- charming bit out.

Just take that line out, but just take the whole sentence out.

I was going to say, to Sue's point, you don't need it. You could just have her leaning on his shoulder, and that says everything about the emotional event. They have come closer, but I do think what it is that Bond has actually offered her that allows her to be closer to him is his complete absence of judgment of her, of she's wearing a dress in the shower.

Well, but let's see. He got her into this. He got her into this. She didn't sign up to be an assassin. He signed up to be an assassin. She didn't. He got her into this. Okay? That's the basic fact. And he's obligated to take care of her. She's getting the emotional fallout. And he has to take some of that on for her.

I mean, I certainly read that into the symbolism of him taking her fingers into his mouth. is is to me him kind of being for lack of a better word like a bit of a sin eater i mean except it's his sins but it's like this isn't the blood on your hands this is this is blood that i put there that that is something that i i read into it.

There you go okay at the sin eater yeah oh wow.

But i think that's why it's such a powerful gesture because it's got a degree of like there's a physical intimacy to it so you can kind of read it just on a level of of physical intimacy between between two people. But you can read the gesture as having kind of a symbolic meaning beyond that. But it doesn't try to dictate it to it. So I actually think it makes it powerful because people can fill that gap.

Could we possibly throw the writer's a bone here and say that the, the emotional event that they have put in this scene through the dramatization, through what the actors are actually doing has survived the, uh, the possible producer pass of make this sexy.

Well, sure. Well, anyway, I think that Daniel Craig and Ava Green had a lot to do with, you you know, saying it's going to be stronger if she's just gotten into the shower without taking on her cocktail dress. I mean, it makes more emotional sense anyway. She walks into a room, she tries to pour a glass of wine. And the thing is, it's not an empty wine bottle. There's a glass of wine that's broken. So to me, she's tried to pour a glass of wine, but her hand is shaking and the glass breaks. And then she just stumbles into the bathroom and gets under the water. And she gets under cold water because she feels she deserves to be punished. So I'm going, how did this scene come about?

And that's a really powerful example. I think if you're using what I would call given circumstances, you'd probably think you'd kind of call it the big fat facts. Or, you know, you just looked at what's written in the scene and going, this is it. She's used cold water. And you've kind of built the emotional understanding of that based on the very simple facts of the scene.

Yeah. But I'm also asking, how would a real person get in? How would this happen to a real person?

Real person.

Yeah. You know, I'm allowing my imagination to imagine a real person. I mean, myself. What if it was me? Would I drink a whole bottle of wine and then take off my dress and then get? No, I wouldn't. Okay. Yeah.

Shall we move on to past lives?

Okay. Okay.

There's a word in Korean, inyon. It means providence or fate. Do you believe in that? That's just something Koreans say to seduce someone. What a good story this is. Childhood sweethearts who reconnect 20 years later and realize they were meant for each other. In the story, I would be the evil white American husband standing in the way of destiny. Shut up. He was just this kid in my head for such a long time. I think I just missed him. Did he miss you?

All right. This is very clearly in three sections, right? Right. And the first section, the three of them are talking. The second section, Nora and Haesung are talking together in Korean with Arthur still sitting there. The third section, Nora has gone to the bathroom and Haesung and Arthur speak to each other. So we'll stop after each. I mostly want to talk about some amazing interviews that I read with Celine Fong that I think are very useful. But, um, but shall we read it anyway, would that be fun?

Yeah. I'll just, for the sake of the record, give a little bit of introduction for those who haven't seen it, though you should. It's a fantastically, beautifully directed, beautifully written film. It's a written, directed by Celine Song and it follows on one level, it follows two childhood friends over the course of 24 years. Really, it's about Nora. She emigrates to America when she's 12, and she kind of leaves a boy behind in Korea. And then we follow her as an adult, and she ends up marrying an American called Arthur. And then Haesung, her kind of, I'm going to use the word crush, but there's, you know, he's important to her, and I think it is more than a crush, but he comes to visit her in America. And that's kind of the setup. up, and this particular scene is the three of them going out to dinner as a group. Is that a fair enough summary, at least enough to kind of get us into the kind of context into this scene?

I think so. They're actually at a bar, though. They're not at a table. I don't think that matters.

Yeah.

But the bar is sort of curved. It's very interesting that the bar is sort of curved, and Nora's in the middle, and Arthur on one side, and Haesung on the other.

I mean, talk about powerful blocking, even just that choice to put them in a bar where she sits in the middle with one on either side, and they could have put the choice to put them in a table where she and her husband are on one side and Haesong's on the other. No, they've deliberately put them in a line with her in the middle.

Yeah. Now, I should say about this first one, I'm going to read Nora, and sometimes I'm repeating things because I'm translating.

Would you like to read the stage directions or not? We're happy to skip stage direction for this read, but I think Stu and I both have, Some that we will call out afterwards.

Okay. I just assumed skip them, but.

Yeah.

Yeah, let's skip them for the read. Because I think what's interesting is this is a good example is I think the dialogue is doing the work and they've made sure that you don't miss it in the stage directions.

Yeah. Well, stage directions, I think I've said this in all my books, the stage directions are for the agents and the producers and the financiers and the executives. They need them because they're reading, you know, stacks of scripts every day. So they need the shortcuts to be spoon-fed some of the subjects. But the actors don't. You know, the actors want to do the work. But sometimes the big, as you guys call it, the big printer.

We've converted you.

Sometimes there are important clues there. You know, sometimes there are emotional events.

We often use the word scaffolding to describe the kind of big print that explains the emotional aspects of the- Boring narration.

All right. We'll start from there. Already a few drinks in. Yes. Okay. When I was 24 year, I.

Military service.

Yes.

Military service. Yes.

Right.

You know, Korean men have mandatory military service.

Of course. Your dad talks about it. How was it? Did you like it?

How was it? Did you like it?

No. But military work, it's same.

Same?

Yes.

Same how?

You have boss. There's overtime pay, stuff like that here, right?

Yes.

In Korea, you work overtime all the time, but there's no overtime pay.

There's no overtime pay in Korea. Really?

Yeah. You have to do all of your boss's work first, then you do your own work, and then you can go home.

Late at night?

Yeah.

That's so hard.

Yeah. It's very hard.

Hard physically or mentally?

Physically or mentally.

Both. Definitely physical, hard, and...

Mentally?

Mentally, I strong.

You're strong mentally.

Yes. Right.

That was very hard to do, wasn't it? To read it, you know, and some of it's in Korean and some of it's translated, but Haesang does have a little bit of English and sometimes he's speaking in English.

But I actually think that what you just said, it's difficult to do, is kind of what the scene is about on some level. Right, like having to translate between these two people and be in the middle of them is kind of difficult and awkward. And I think that actually comes across in the read without us actually even pointing out when it says awkward silence in the big print.

Well, you know, that's an interesting way because a big part of understanding emotional event is understanding it as cause and effect. So you could say that the emotional event, as you just said, is that this is uncomfortable and that the trying to talk, all three of them, is that they're reaching an impasse. And because they've reached an impasse in the three-way conversation, and that causes them to turn to a two-way conversation with Haesung and Nora. That can be a way to think of it.

I am going to read the big print that happens just after the end of this beat. Because what is interesting, we're stopping here because we feel like it's a beat change.

Yes. Well, definitely. I mean, it's definitely.

Yeah. Celine. And she comes from theatre. So, I think she's going to be very conscious of this stuff. She's written in big print for the beat change. And she's written, awkward silence. Haesung and Arthur stare at each other for a moment. They cannot read each other's expressions. They are still mysteries to each other. Beat. Haesung downs his drink. I think Haesung smiles as he turns to Nora. So she's put the physical action that will dramatize to the audience what the beat is. But she's, as a writer, kind of just given us a little bit, you know, as you say, for the executives and everyone else who's trying to read it and may not be attuned to this stuff. She still kind of explained what that beat is and has kind of indicated that it is end of the beat just by her choice of interrupting the dialogue.

You know, maybe it would be interesting for me to mention right here that this line in the big print, the line, they are still mysteries to each other. She translated that into, I don't know if you've read any interviews with her, but she did a lot of interviews. And in one interview that I just was fascinated by, and I'll send this to you so you can put it on the podcast. But, you know, because she comes from theater, she did theater type exercises. Yes. And she did not allow the actors playing Arthur or Haesung to meet each other before the first scene where they meet on camera. Beautiful. Now, that's actually something you couldn't do in theater because you have to have rehearsals in theater. You couldn't do that in theater. And she also instructed Greta Lee to tell each of her two male scene partners when she was rehearsing with the other one. You know, tell them, oh, I'm rehearsing with John next time, or I'm rehearsing with Teo next time. And to tell each other what it was like filming with the other one before they met. And that was, you know, and Celine Tsang said that, you know, in order to have that, so that mystery would build up, the mystery of each, so they would be imagining each other before they ever met. So, she puts that in, that line of stage direction. Instead of telling that to the actors, she created a situation where that could happen. But she throws that in, again, for the producers or the executives.

The skim readers. Right.

She actually translated that line into a physical and emotional reality with these sort of theater style exercises that you wouldn't have thought, you know, like most people would say, like, Well, you know, I'm an actor. You don't have to trick me. But everybody believed in her vision so deeply that they would do anything for her.

And I think a lot of people can respond positively to that. I mean, I'm not Celine, but I'm far from it. But on one of my own projects, which was a little bit of a sci-fi film about a man, it's like a body swap thing, but there's two of them. And one of the characters wants to get back to his family. And with all the stuff we were shooting with his family, where he's not present, I actually invited the actor to come and just be on set, right, and watch everyone else doing the stuff. And he took that invitation and he found it really useful because he's like, I'm watching these other people. You know, it takes something that's an intellectual idea of I want to be back with my family and makes it something tangible. He sees everyone else having fun, but he's separate from it. So, I do think these are things that, you know, I like, I'm using your terminology now, the language of permission. mission you know i i will be like is this something that you're interested in doing because i'm open to it and then the actor can decide whether or not they feel it's useful i don't want to force people to do stuff but it's amazing when you phrase stuff as questions you get people thinking about whether or not they find it useful you know they might come back to you tomorrow and go oh actually yeah i think i will do that actually because you know whereas if you say you should do this or you should do that can be accusational i guess for like a bit of a word yeah.

Yeah that's Okay, and I love the word tangible. That was helpful. I think that's the word I was searching for when I said physical, tangible. You know, with those exercises, she created an emotional situation that was tangible. All right, so let's do this little section, second section.

Hyesung and Nora, yeah, it's just them together now, talking together.

And they're talking in Korean. Arthur is excluded.

Gets out his phone and begins scrolling through it. That's it. Yeah. Haesung smiles as he turns to Nora.

It was good that you immigrated.

Yeah, I agree.

Korea is too small of a country for you. It's not enough to satisfy your greed.

Well, let's stop for a second. I mean, I think that's amazing, you know, because it says they laugh. It's such a mysterious line. It's not enough to satisfy your greed. It's such an interesting choice of word. and it makes her laugh because she doesn't have a kind of self-importance about anything and she's sort of saying, yes, I am greedy. I was greedy and Korea wouldn't have done it.

Well, they have a running joke throughout the film as to whether she's going for a pool at Surprise or a Tony or...

Oh, right, right. That's true.

It is established that they have this...

But it could say satisfy your ambition.

Yeah, sure.

Satisfy your potential. You could have said something else. It creates an intimacy is what I'm saying. So the emotional event, the tiny emotional event there is not an accusation or a cruelty. It's an intimacy.

Yeah.

All right, let's go on.

So at this point, Arthur is excluded from the conversation while they're speaking Korean. So he gets out his phone and begins scrolling through it, Facebook, Twitter, et cetera. Thank you for introducing me to your husband.

Of course.

It seems like he really loves you.

Yeah.

Are you happy?

Of course.

I didn't know that liking your husband would hurt this much.

Yeah.

Yeah. When we stopped talking, I really missed you. Did you miss me?

Of course.

But you met your husband then.

You met your ex-girlfriend then, too.

Sorry.

It's okay.

I don't know. Seeing you again and being here makes me have a lot of weird thoughts.

What kind of thoughts?

I had found my first love after 12 years and I shouldn't have let her go. Thoughts like that. What if I'd come to New York 12 years ago? What if you could have come to Seoul? What if you had never left? If you hadn't left like that and we just grew up together, would I still have looked for you? Would we have dated, broken up, gotten married? Would we have had kids together? Thoughts like that. But the truth I learned here is you had to leave because you're you. And the reason I liked you is because you're you. And who you are is someone who leaves.

The Na Young you remember doesn't exist here.

I know.

But that little girl did exist. She's not here in front of you, but it doesn't mean she's not Ria. 20 years ago, I left her behind with you.

I know. And even though I was only 12, I loved her.

You psycho. I think there was something in our past lives, otherwise we wouldn't be here together right now. Why would we be here together right now? But in this life, we don't have the inyon to be that kind of person to each other. Because now that we're finally in the same city for the first time in almost twenty years….

We're sitting here with your husband. In this life, you and Arthur are that kind of Inyan to each other. You two have the 8,000 layers of Inyan. To Arthur, you're someone who stays.

Arthur looks so. We're just talking about you.

Who do you think we were to each other in our past lives?

I don't know.

Maybe an impossible affair between the queen and the king's henchmen, something like that.

Or maybe we were forced to live together in a political marriage and we were awful to each other.

Cheat on each other a bunch.

Say hurtful things to each other.

Or maybe we were just sitting next to each other on the same train.

Why?

Just because that's what our tickets said.

Maybe we were just a bird and the branch it sat on one morning, oh okay following section she's gotten up and gone to the restroom but um one thing that i think is interesting is you know she keeps saying of course of course i love my husband of course he loves me of course, until he says this thing about seeing you again and being here makes me have a lot of weird thoughts. And then to me, this next line, when she says, what kind of thoughts, she doesn't have to say that. What would happen if she didn't say that? If she didn't say that, she could stop this tete-a-tete and bring Arthur into the conversation. But that seems really really significant, like a key line. You could call it a mysterious line, but it's also a key line. It's key to this scene that she says, I'm going to let you tell me things that are going to be hard to hear. So, Celine Song has said about this scene, it's okay with me if people want to think of this as a love triangle, if they think it's about a love triangle, but that's not what it is for me. That's not my intention. attention. To me, she said, this is a quote, to me, the movie really is about taking the moment to say our proper goodbyes to parts of ourselves. And to me, it takes me even further. It's like, to do that, you've got to do the work, you know? And it seems to say something really deeply, not just about leaving our past behind, but about doing the work of every relationship, relationship because that's something that people don't usually do. So, to me, it's completely significant that she says, what kind of thoughts? Because later, she breaks the mood by saying, laughing at him, you psycho. You know what I mean? At some point, the mood has to be broken. It can't just go into this drunken sob story indefinitely, right? And she could have broken it when he says that seeing you again and being here makes me have a lot of weird thoughts. And of course, actually, the first thing that he said was, I didn't know that liking your husband would hurt this much. So that's the first, sorry, I'm jumping around, but that's the first key.

Mm-hmm.

And that's when she stops saying, of course, up until then, she said, of course, to everything. And in a way, that's like, yeah, I'm okay with everything. I'm taking this all easy and light. I'm totally fine with all of this. And then he says that, this soul bearing thing, this incredibly hard thing to say. And at that point, she stopped saying, of course, and they have a little fight over where he says, you met your husband when you stopped writing to me. And she said, well, you met your girlfriend. It's a little fight. And then he takes it even further. First time he takes it further with, I didn't know it would hurt so much.

Husband.

And then she almost tries to get out of it by picking a fight with him. But then he takes it even further. Seeing you here and being here makes me have a lot of weird thoughts. Well, she knows what he's going to say. We should have gotten married. I should have, you know, it might not be very pleasant to hear it, but she lets him say it. She says, what kind of thoughts? And she sits there while he says all these things. But that's what's called doing the work is, you know, asking people what's going on, telling people what's going on, listening to them. And then she gives them this beautiful gift where she says, that little girl did exist she was real and 20 years ago i left her behind with you that's very beautiful gift to get somebody.

It is and it's interesting like just even the the kind of metaphor of gift strikes me as an emotional event yeah you know giving someone a gift is oh is is a way you could describe as this event yeah yeah and i think it's it's her kind of acknowledging what he feels, right? And she's being honest, but she's also, I think it works because she's acknowledging something, like she's acknowledging the validity of his feelings.

Well, she's listening to them. So that, let them be valid. But she keeps a boundary. She keeps a boundary. When he goes, he's saying, even though I was only 12, I loved her. He's about to say, I still love you. She's not going to let him say that.

He's psycho. And she does it with a joke, which is a great disarming.

With a joke, yeah. And then she objects it to this, you know, what about our past lives? And we don't have that in Yun to be that person to each other. You know, she's explaining, I have to put a stop to this now. And he's accepting it. And this line when he says to Arthur, you're someone who stays.

Yeah. It's him acknowledging that. I mean, this is all, almost every line feels like an emotional event. Like, every exchange feels like them negotiating their relationship, and their relationship is shifting. But it is, to me, the climax, the emotional climax of the film. There's the goodbye at the end, but it feels like this scene is, for lack of a better metaphor, like, this is the big fight that you would get in the third act. But it's not a fight. This is them kind of renegotiating their relationship.

Yeah.

I think what is interesting is that she has chosen to use these moments of emotional scaffolding to make it easier for those people who aren't necessarily actors to understand the emotional events. So, you get a line after, I didn't know that liking your husband would hurt this much. Yeah, yeah. I love the exchange of the yeah, yeah. Like, her just going, yeah, and him saying, yeah, is them, in terms of dialogue, acknowledging how stunning this revelation is. but also this kind of permission for the conversation to continue. But in terms of the action lines, she writes, everything stops and like a magical spell, something opens up between them. And she is actually bolded, something opens up between them. She's indicating in the big print that this is a beat change and that we're going to go to something that is more kind of confessional.

Yes.

And there's a few of those moments throughout. So you got when they're having their fight, but you met your husband, and you met your ex-girlfriend too. The scaffolding, I'm going to use this terminology because I think it's just my way of understanding. There's big print, which describes action. There's big prints that helps mood. This is kind of emotional scaffolding. It's helped us to understand the emotional, what's happening emotionally. It is tense for a moment. Are they really being jealous of each other sitting at the same table as Arthur?

Again, I think it's absolutely correct for her to put that in to the script that gets sent around. but it is also something that the actors can you know take very lightly they can even cross it out with a single line if they have to look at it later but not take it literally.

Yeah no i think the reason and part of the reason we've been using this term is that we did that little script read the project we mentioned at the beginning and we're going to be doing another read with actors right so we're going to have there's a few people that we're inviting and we want and we like Like, there's a bunch of stuff in that script that we could take out because once you hear actors saying it, it's actually going to be interrupting the flow and the scene and it's going to spoil the mood. So, we actually might make a version of the script where we cross out some of these lines just for the purposes of a table read.

I think that's an excellent idea. Yeah, I think that's an excellent idea.

And so, we kind of have to go, that line is really useful for when someone is reading it. And look, this stuff can be really informative for someone like a cinematographer who's like, oh, this feels like a beat change and maybe we do this to the, you know, and it might be something they then offer up to the director as an idea because it helps them understand what's going on. But when you're sitting down listening to actors read something, hopefully, hopefully our dialogue is good and the emotional reality that we've constructed will help the actors do the work, you know, and communicate those emotional events. It's just interesting to me that she's reinforcing what some of these emotional events are and the beat changes are.

If you were doing a table read, that would be one of the lines that you do not read.

I mean, there's lots of them. Like, Nora begins speaking from her heart as openly as she can. I mean, that is the same thing.

As I say, it's perfectly correct that it gets sent around to people. But when you're doing a table read, it just gets in the way. You know, if you want to hear what things are like, a reading of the stage directions won't help you. It will help you to read the stage direction about Colonel Groves throws the jacket at Nichols. That will be helpful.

Yeah. And some of these little moments where they take a drink or Arthur being on his phone, I think is useful because it's Arthur choosing. What I like about Arthur as a character in this film is he's emotionally intelligent. And I think him looking at his phone isn't him actively being disinterested. it's him knowing that they're having a moment and he will just keep himself occupied without expecting any obligations to be included that's my interpretation of it well.

We're talking about two different things though right we're talking about whether those useful for in the script that you send around to people or whether it's useful for the table read so those are two different things.

Yeah yeah absolutely i'm just saying that that's like an interesting example of something that i think is really useful both for the table read and for the script because it indicates.

You'd be surprised, though. You know, an actor's going to take out his own phone and just do it. They don't need hand-holding that much.

Yeah. All right.

Yeah. Should we try and...

So anyway, you know, she, and maybe Haesan has been drinking too much and he's getting into a kind of a sob story kind of thing. And he's going to start telling her that he still loves her. And, and she's, she's going to put a stop to that. You don't get me, but you get to know that I left my childhood with you. And then they're going to, you know, riff around about, you know, what, where we, you know, a bickering couple and a, you know, a political couple. And ending with a bird sitting on a branch, which is just so gorgeous. Just such a nice image. And then she leaves to use the restroom. That's it. You know, she cuts it off. That's it. And so now let's read this last little bit with Hyacinth and Arthur.

Arthur is still kind of on his phone, but he looks up.

I'm sorry we speak alone. We will stop.

It's okay. You haven't seen each other in a long time. I never thought I'd be part of something like this. Sitting here with you.

Do you know what... Inyan?

Yes. Nora told me when we first met.

You and me?

Yes. You and I are in Inyan, too. I'm really glad you came here. It was the right thing to do.

Okay. So I don't remember what happened. There's a lot of big print here about Haesung becoming very emotional and starting to cry. And then it says here Arthur is not sure what he's supposed to say or do in response to that, so he just looks away and pretends not to notice. It's an act of kindness. Yes. So, again, I'd have to go back and look at the movie to see how they actually handled that moment. But I just question it all. I just question this whole paragraph. You know, like something important happens. But I take this clue that Haesung starts crying is that he's had too much to drink. That's how I take that. that he's had too much to drink and he wanted to tell Nora he still loved her and that he wanted to take her back to Korea. And he's disciplined himself and he's taken the cues and is not going to do that. But he's had too much to drink, so he's, you know, he's starting to cry. But I don't know if they went that direction so much. I don't remember it being like that.

I think for me, part of the clue at this moment is that, you know, it hurts so much to like your husband. I think that is then reinforced. What's interesting to me is that kind of structure is that's brought up a little bit in the beginning. And at the end, Arthur does show him kindness. I'm glad you came here. It was the right thing to do.

That's the kindness. As far as looking away when Hyacinth starts crying, I don't know if that's an act of kindness. Maybe. But the act of kindness is what you just said. I'm glad you came here. So that's part of the emotional event of the scene is an act of kindness. and an end to their relationship.

I think just leaving this moment here, I think what is the power of an emotional event is that when you see it on screen, the emotional power doesn't need all those words.

I mean, you could say that both Nora and Arthur protect Hy-sun from making the big mistake of crossing the line and saying, I still love you and I want you to come back to Korea with me.

Mm-hmm. So, I will, just to kind of wrap us up, I think the stuff that really has struck me over these three discussions is, I mean, this could be my bias as someone who came to writing from directing, that just sitting and listening to the dialogue without the big print is actually a really good way to test whether the emotional events are working.

Right?

It seems, it should seem obvious. I think thinking of every scene and looking for the emotional event. I mean, that's what I came into this and going, looking for what the emotional events are is really useful and challenging yourself. But it was when you were talking about Oppenheimer, the idea of thinking about what the core relationships are and the bigger movements of the story, you know, over scenes and acts or sequences is really useful and what the emotional events are. I wouldn't be surprised if we went back and when the second act ends with an emotional event, right, in Oppenheim or any of these stories, that there is a big enough emotional event that is actually what spins the story into a new direction.

Sometimes, but sometimes the emotional event is a long thing, not just one moment. You know, sometimes the emotional event is happening over the whole scene. Sometimes they're arguing during the whole scene or the whole beat. It's not that cut and dried, like just one thing that puts the button on a scene. I believe, I've got to tell you what I believe about writing. You've got to love these characters, and you've got to imagine them very, very deeply, and you've got to put yourself in them, and you've got to see what they do, not just. Manipulate them. Oh, here's the other thing I was going to say, is that when have you been in a situation where you had a difficult emotional thing and you took the chance and did the work instead of sweeping it under the rug? That's what they don't do. None of them do that. So that's the next thing that I think everybody should do, the actors for sure, and the directors directors and the writers is to think about, what do I know about this? When have I done this? Now, for the writer-director of this particular movie, Helene Song, this was based on an actual thing that happened to her. She did do the work, and she is sort of telling us how to do it. It's very generous of her. And if you're starting something new, it's not that everything has to be be autobiographical. I don't believe that. But boiling it down to the emotional event or the emotional situation and saying, when have I been in this situation? What was it like? Or when have I seen somebody? Or how is it? Like the Oppenheimer scene, that's such a male scene. That's not something I've ever done, negotiate getting a job in that particular way. But I still, I know enough off about men, I think, that I can really get into that these are people who they're hungry. What are they hungry for? They're hungry for someone to trust and respect. And that's a hunger that everyone shares.

Right?

That's something that happens to all of us. Now, not all of us are going to build an atomic bomb and not all of us are going to be in the military, but all of us have known that craving for a relationship of trust and respect. Somebody who's as smart as we are, You know, that's a real human need. So that's the value of, it's like boiling it down. You know, you don't get stuck in the plot because the plot didn't happen to you. I mean, in this case, it happened to Celine Song. But generally speaking, the plot didn't happen to you, but the emotional event did at some point. And so that's part of what I call script analysis, is to do that kind of work. That's the right place to end.

It is.

Thank you.

And for those who are interested in more on script analysis, directing actors obviously does some breakdowns, but the film director's intuition really goes into script analysis. Like when I'm breaking down a script, I often put my printed copy of the book of the director's intuition next to me, just like a kind of a mindfulness technique. So the expanded audio book version coming out shortly.

April 3rd.

It will be part of my toolkit. It will be the kind of thing I listen to in the car driving to set, you know, just to kind of get my brain firing, which it stopped doing. It stopped doing a few minutes ago. This has been a fantastic couple of hours. Thank you so much. Breaking down these scenes and looking through the emotional event.

It's addictive, this stuff. It's addictive, isn't it?

Oh, yeah. And look, it just shows you, like, we just spent hours going through a handful of scenes. It shows you how, if you want to do script analysis on a feature, how thorough and time consuming, you need to set aside the time. To do the work, you need to set aside the time.

Yep.

And thank you so much, Judith. I mean, you'd listened to a couple of our episodes and said, hey, I hear you guys go quite long sometimes. I think we should try and keep this to about an hour. And we're like, yes, absolutely. Let's do it. I know.

I also knew that I wouldn't be able to keep myself to an hour either.

Well, thank you very much for meeting Draft Zero.

It was great fun. Thank you so much for inviting me and for picking these wonderful scenes to talk about.

Such great scenes. And look forward to listening to the new audio book.

Special thanks to our superous patrons who bring you the most Draft Zero, the most often at Lily, Alexandra, Malay, Jen, Thomas, Randy, Jesse, Sandra, These and Crob.

I hope you all feel like arguing with either Stu or myself about anything on this episode or anything in general. And you can find many ways of getting in touch with us at our website at draft-zero.com. At the website, you'll also find the show notes for this and all our other episodes. As well as links to support us and spread the word for free via a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. Very important for spreading the word. Or if you think that what we do here is worth a dollar or preferably more than a dollar, then you can also find links to our Patreon page to support us getting these episodes to you quicker. Thanks. And thanks for listening.