I really liked the idea of Clooney rubbing snow on his hat for impromptu camouflage and was disappointed it wasn't in the final scene. That's a nice tactical touch that I think would have showed the character's intelligence.

Also, the script respected the sniper's intelligence also. He showed he was crafty--a worthy opponent--by hiding in a tree, while in the movie it looked like he was just standing there. I liked the suspense of Clooney having to look for little signs, like the snow falling from the branch, the puff of blue smoke--it made it more of a tense, cat and mouse sniper duel--almost like a chess game--rather than a straight shootout. In the film, Clooney just kind of walked around to the other side of the rock and shot the guy, while in the script he relied on his experience and visual clues to place his shots where he suspected the sniper to be, and scored a kill. That was the kind of feat you'd expect from an expert, and it not only made for a good scene, it revealed a lot about his character too.

@CJ: This is a case where in reading the script after seeing the movie, I definitely found some aspects of the former I wish had been kept in the latter. Even grace notes such as you've indicated -- rubbing snow on his hat -- add to the verisimilitude and dramatic tension. Makes me wonder about that specific note: Did they forget it was in the script? Did they decide it wasn't important? Did they try it, but snow kept falling in Clooney's face? Were they just too damn cold and said, "Screw it?"

I like the movie a lot. It's basically an indie film made 'big' because of Clooney's involvement. He's terrific in the role.

I'll have to see it now.
Also, I noticed the intercutting of shots with the man in the Mercedes wasn't in the film version. I imagine this was to keep his eventual "popping up" more of a surprise, and to give a payoff to her foreshadowing "travel in pairs" comment. However, I think it worked in the script, but for a different reason. The way the script read, it made you intrigued about who he was and what he was going to do.

I also loved this film, I thin even more because I knew what it was going in. A lot of people hated it because it was billed as a big action movie, when it's more of a 70's thriller like Bullit or The French Cinnection.

Agree completely about the subtle details being left out of the film. It doesn't make much sense to me, as the rest of the film is filled with Jack's little intricacies that establish him as being this master of his trade, which is one of the things that really got me interested in the character, which you kind of have to be (in my opinion) to really enjoy the film. So to leave that out is just a little strange to me.

I like that the cutaways weren't used. By not revealing anything for the audience, we are at the same level of knowledge as the characters. If we would have been a step ahead of Jack – seeing the shooters - it would have been less suspenseful.

To quote ZoeTheCat from the Alien analysis: “it is far more effective to leave the audience in the same frame of reference.” Sometimes it's good to know more than the characters on screen so we get that “No, don't go in there!” feeling, but here I think not knowing what the threat is makes it more unsettling.

I do agree that the scene as filmed lost a bit of the subtleties, but I think some of that could have to do with the location and other things that might have impacted the shoot. Like Scott said, there could have been many reasons they didn't include the snow on the hat. My guess is that they realized it was pointless since in addition to a black hat, he is wearing a dark coat and pants. And he would have to cover the hat in snow if it were to have any effect on blending in, not just rub some into it.

After Jack studies the prints he turns to look at the shoreline. In the script it's this:

Then, about ten metres inland from the edge of the lake, a low branch dips and a thick rug of snow falls from the branch.

Jack grabs Ingrid... etc.

In the film, he looks towards the shoreline but doesn't actually see anything move, right? I like this choice better. It heightens the suspense – we still don't know what's going on.


In the script:

He rubs snow into his woollen hat, edges up until he can just see over the snow and pumps THREE SHOTS into the dusk under the trees.

That reads quickly, but is more drawn out on screen. The director realized a good spot to increase the suspense by having Jack inch himself along the edge. It could have something as simple as he liked the way that rock looked and seized an opportunity to incorporate it in the film. Like any good director, he worked with the location to make it as natural as possible for the characters to operate within it.

And just like in the script, this is the moment where Jack shows he's no newbie.

But let's take a step back and dissect the “travel in pairs” line. It is a nice foreshadowing even though it's actually not true – hunters do not necessarily hunt in pairs or in groups – but it works nicely as a dramatic effect in the film and it seems to be the point where Jack puts two and two together.

I believe there is another reason for that line, though.

In the script, this line reads nicely:

The man’s prints are heading in the opposite direction, towards the shoreline.

That is almost impossible to see in the film, and even if you could see it, how many people in the audience would know what animal prints and human foot prints look like in the snow and which directions they were going, plus make that connection in a matter of seconds?

I'm guessing this was anticipated by the writers, perhaps in a discussion with the director, so the “show don't tell” aspect lost out in this case. They had to make it clear for the audience that something was wrong. Jack's facial expression would not be enough, hence adding Ingrid's lines.

This proves again that film is an organic medium and a good director should use every possible way of telling the story in the most efficient way. The more we as writers can anticipate moments like this one, the better our scripts will be.

One more point about the snow in the hat.

"He rubs snow into his woollen hat"

That takes less than two seconds to read, but in order for Jack to pick up the snow, rub enough of it into it so it would be effective enough to be used as camouflage, that would take longer than that. And by it taking too long the scene would have lost some of its urgency. If the point was to show that Jack is a professional, the three perfectly aimed shots signaled that clearly.

Lesson learned: Much like dialogue that should be read out loud to check to see if it sounds good spoken, action should be acted out to see if it's physically possible to do, and to see if it takes up about as much space in your script as it would on the screen.

Or maybe they tried it and the snow was just too damn cold.

@Teddy: Your point about the line of dialogue -- "Don’t they always travel in two’s?" -- is, I think, probably right. The fact, as you note, that it's basically illogical (all hunters don't travel in pairs) suggests the line exists precisely to convey to the moviegoer what could not necessarily be made clear on film (i.e., the man's footprints heading in the opposite direction). Rather than risk confusing viewers -- Jack studies the footprints, then suddenly [and inexplicably] goes into stealth mode -- one line of dialogue, albeit a bit awkward in retrospect in terms of its content, provides the necessary info for the viewer to make the connection. Since it's in the script, that is a case, as you suggest, where the writer [Joffe] anticipated the cinematic problem and tried to deal with it through dialogue.

Re the snow on the woolen hat: It's not a huge sacrifice, however AUrunna's point echoes my sentiments: "It doesn't make much sense to me, as the rest of the film is filled with Jack's little intricacies that establish him as being this master of his trade, which is one of the things that really got me interested in the character..." That is one of the most interesting aspects of Jack's character, his complete attention to detail. Obviously that's one of the reasons he's so damn good at what he does and presumably one of the reasons he's managed to stay alive all this time. So the snow on the hat is just one of those grace notes to add to his personal mystique.

But you raise another point which perhaps Clooney, who is really sharp at his craft, deduced: "I'm wearing dark pants, a dark coat. What is spreading snow on my wool cap going to do?" Or something like that.

I'll bet if any of us ever managed to corner Clooney or the director Anton Corbijn, and asked them, "Hey, why no rubbing snow in the wool cap during the opening incident," they would almost assuredly answer, "The hell if I can remember." So probably a small but eternal mystery.

A comment about the script style: Notice how Joffe breaks up almost every sentence into a paragraph? That is a common style among many contemporary screenwriters. As noted in previous posts, it not only makes for a better read, easier on the eyes, it also allows a writer to 'direct' the scene with each line suggesting a different camera shot.

Also note how he bolds and underlines each slugline. And caps all character names. And italicizes key scene description to make sure the reader notes what is being communicated in those lines.

The fact is some screenwriting gurus would, I suspect, criticize such stylistic choices per their rules. But the fact remains that working screenwriters, actual professionals who get paid to do what they do, in fact 'break' such rules.

I have a principle on this: "Whatever communicates your story best." Part of that speaks to the choice of Narrative Voice, as that effects your style. And part of that speaks to a writer simply writing the best damn story in the best damn way they know how.

Story trumps all, even so-called style guidelines.

[Caveat: I strongly advise a writer to learn the conventional approach to style before deciding on departing from those 'rules,' but again, the rules do not rule: The story does.

Good point about the script style, Scott. When I copied the scene into the email I sent you, the formatting got all screwed up, so I "cleaned it up" a bit. I'm glad you used the writer's original script.

@Teddy: Getting copy from a script into a blog post is one of my ongoing hassles. The best I've found are HTML versions. It loses the formatting, but at least I can do a direct copy/paste. If as most scripts are nowadays it's a PDF, that's problematic. Sometimes you can copy, sometimes you can't. I bought a program that converts PDF to Word, but that is spotty.

So... with some scripts I am particularly anxious to post about, I will literally type in the content.

As crazy as that sounds, I know.

Any other suggestions on that front, I'd be much obliged for help.

I don't know much about HTML or blog publishing, but I do know that John August uses Scrippets on his site.

http://scrippets.org/

Not sure if that could be useful for you...

I love these posts, the Script to Screen series. It's really forced me to not only look at current movies with the script open (the iPad is awesome in this regard if anything else), but to examine my own and visualize (even moreso than usual) how it would play out.

Thanks and keep 'em coming, Scott!

@David: That is precisely what I was hoping GITS readers would say when I started this series. By analyzing the script-to-screen transition, we can learn so much about filmmaking and how that process can impact our writing to make it more cinematic.

If you like this series, stay tuned. I'm going to be announcing some new GITS initiatives next week. Very exciting.

I haven't seen the film yet (just bumped it to the top of my Netflix Queue,) so I'm commenting only on the scene as presented here...

Much as I loved the detail of rubbing the snow in the hat, it was made unnecessary by the scenery. In the script, they are lying in the snow. in the film, the director had the cool rock behind them, which provided cover. Lying in the snow meant that to get a shot, he had to raise his head into view, thus the camouflage. In this scene, he's not raising his head into view, so rubbing snow in his hat would have been pointless and may have just looked odd.

As for the "CRACK of a bullet- so quiet it might be a bough snapping under the weight of winter.

It isn’t" - this would have been hard to convey clearly. A quiet sound - but how do you show the "it isn't part" so that it can be grasped in an instant? Later in the film, things can slow down, but the opening scene needs to establish danger.

I do think having the shooter standing in the open was a misstep, because it does de-value his skill and thus lessen the overall sense of danger...but it also places the shooter in the same shot as Clooney's gun as he fires and establishes that he shot someone who was actually aiming at him.

In this - "We hear a muttering groan and then a sliding sound, as if JACK has just shot a tobogganist" - there's little, if anything, onscreeen to establish that he *hasn't* just shot a tobogganist. The shots ricocheting close to them, rather than the more subtle quiet sound, plus the clear muzzleflash from the shooter also establish this.

Also, the shooter falls right in front of them, giving the characters a chance to react and giving the audience clear knowledge that, yes, Clooney got him.

As written, the scene could have easily looked like Jack just lost it.

After the danger is established, then we know the threat is real and don't have to puzzle out the character's motivations, so we may see the subtleties that would escape us an early scene.