I watched this movie an year ago. This one of those films, I got shocked by those visuals (as I am basically from CGI background), I always wondered how the director would've planned the CG (Computer Graphics)part. Later I got an idea of how they would've planned the CG part. But when I learned about screenplay, till now I didn't get any idea how they wrote this script. I always wondered how did the screenwriter got this title of the film…I mean how much research they'll do to get this poem of Alexander Pope (I don’t even know, whether Alex is so popular or not). The loved the name 'Lacuna'. What a name! for that office.. I didn’t get any impression (good/bad) while reading the script. I simply read the screenplay and took notes. The first thing I was confused about was in Page 29, Joel's appartment, he takes the pill and there was a dual dialogue, ie Joel's dialogue and a Voice over. I didn't get how this is going to be in the movie. There were some pages where I got a bit bored of the conversations between Naomi and Joel. (maybe coz of I didn’t understand the meaning) After page 75..stopped taking any notes and finished the screenplay. It took 7 hrs to finish this screenplay, while both understanding and analyzing, taking notes, (along with unwanted interruptions). I know I am soooo sloww…. Can someone tell me how much time do you take to finish reading a screenplay and analyzing it.?? (Also….to type this paragraph I took another 1/2 hr.

SK Tagore, I would say that most script readers in Hollywood take 75-90 minutes to give a script a good read. For purposes of this series, I'll take up to 2 hours because I'm inserting notes in the margins of my PDF. But everyone is different and reading times will vary.

What I liked most were the lines Kaufman put in Clem's mouth. They seemed like pet peeves that Kaufman has gathered from real life and even movies and put them in an interesting dialogue which helped shape Clem's unique and interesting character. I enjoyed Act I a lot, then I started to get lost. I hope seeing the movie will clear things up.

Wow! I hadn’t seen this film before, so I watched it over the weekend, before reading the script - which I am ? of the way through. (Like SK Tagore, I am finding this one a slow read - not because I don’t like it, I love it! - but because it is complicated and because I am taking notes). So, even though I am not al of the way through it, I’ve read enough that I can post something to this discussion (I need to get on to my other “real” work!). Well, first of all I just love Kaufman’s unique vision, is unique concept - how he can write stories that really truly do get inside someone’s head. And he writes them so they actually work. The whole suspension of belief thing for me was such a non-issue, I bought in all the way through. I also was impressed with how simply he explained to us what that concept was. Up to page 31 we are a bit confused - not quite clear on relationships, timing, etc. - util he sees the card that Rob and Carrie were sent, that explains in a line: Clem had him erased from her mind. I am blown away by how simply he gave that to us (and also by how far in we were before he revealed it nearly 25%). Another thing that this was really amazing for me was seeing what a master he is of writing scenes, and especially in writing transitions between. Some amazing examples of “get in late, get out early.” And being efficient and concise by what he is able to leave out - e.g. p14, when Joel and Clem are getting to know one another (we think it’s the first time) and she invites him up for a drink and he says no. CUT TO: him upstairs while she makes drinks. Love it! And aside from efficient transitions, there are clever transitions - e.g. when he is telling her about Patrick and she gets grossed out by who Patrick is (p73) then we cut abruptly to her in the car with him. Very effective juxtaposition. Other things I like are background stuff going on, that has nothing to do with any of the stories but which often expresses other background conflicts going on. e.g. p33 at Rob and Carrie’s house, while they are all talking, Rob is hammering away on a birdhouse and driving Carrie up the wall. Oh, and another thing I love was Stan’s entrance (p32) - Boo! Such a tiny part of that scene, but says so much about him as well as his feelings for/relationship with Mary. I love how many of the themes of the film were stated through dialogue in Act I - I am sure we will get to that in our other discussion. I love the use of colour - both the many scenes that were fairly drab colours but had one or two red or orange accents (the opening train platform scene, scenes with Clem wearing a red jacket or red pants). And also the use of her changing hair colour, which helped us keep track as time jumped around - suddenly when her hair is red and not blue we know some time has passed; when they first meet and it is green then we know that this is not the same “first” meeting that we have already witnessed. OK, I do have more that I want to say here. I will probably not get back here til tomorrow morning though. But I basically find this script a fantastic example, of all the stuff that I am reading in screenwriting handbooks, of what to do and what not to do - a great example of all of those “rules” coming together and applied to make a really effective and moving script (and film). Especially that the concept behind this is so difficult - all the jumps forward and back in time, in and out of his head, from real memories to altered memories… and Kaufman showing rather than telling us all of that. Wow!

Jacqueline, your points about scene transitions are good ones. I often find transitions to be a telltale sign between a quality writer who has a strong cinematic understanding and one who does not. I like to think of it this way: Every time I transition from one scene to the next, it's an opportunity for the reader to lapse out of the read. A transition is like a little break and the last thing I want is to allow the reader to use that break to put down my script. So as Kaufman does in those examples you cited, he doesn't allow there be a break, rather creates action that moves the story seamlessly from scene to scene, both visually and economically.

This was a good read. I caught some of the typos in the script, along with one whole scene, when Patrick brings Clementine back to her apartment from frozen lake, they used Mary instead of Clementine to deliver the line. I agree to most of what people has already said. One thing which I was trying to find out and when I read a script I always pays a close attention to the placement of the midpoint. In this script, on page 60 is the point when we hit the middle point. When Clementine asks Joel to hide her in his other memories. It is a perfect example of false victory kind of situation. Cheers Mragendra

I've seen this movie a half dozen times, once with the Gondry/Kaufman commentary track, and I re-watched it again over the weekend before I read the script. This was such an easy read, but what was amazing is how much they still cut out of the final product. The first act is probably 20% smaller in the film. They cut out all the Naomi scenes, the scene about the father. Overall it was much tighter when it hit the screen. Everything they cut I thought was an improvement, except one thing. When Stan is telling Mary about the time he caught her with Mierzwiack, in the script he says:

He looked a little like a kid. Kind of goofy and wide-eyed. I’d never seen him look like that before. Happy. You looked beautiful. You looked in love.

What that drives home that I didn't catch from the movie is that Mierzwack and his wife had a drab, lifeless relationship, and in this they were just like Joel and Naomi. Mary was Mierzwack's Clementine, but unlike Joel he erased it all for good and went back to the safe and sad fate.

Just sharing a few finds re ESotSM:

Incidentally, why the Polish names Kruczynski and Mierzwiak? A tribute to Polish science fiction of a cerebral, non-technological kind? And we note on the nameplate on her desk that Mary’s last name is “Svevo”—an homage to Italo Svevo, the Italian novelist who pioneered the modern internal-psychological novel? Clementine presumably refers to the girl in the folk song who is “lost and gone forever.” Barish suggests “banish,” “perish,” perhaps “nebbish.” Some of this is too clever by half.

When Joel asks Dr. Mierzwiak whether the memory expunging carries any risk of brain damage, the latter mildly replies, “Technically speaking, the procedure is brain damage.” And of course it is. The characters to whom the procedure has “successfully” been done walk around in a bit of a daze; who they are and what they’ve become do not entirely make sense to them. How could they? There are gaps (Lacuna = an empty space or missing part). In any case, since the experience is not present in the mind to be learned from, they inevitably make the same mistakes. They’re like the proverbial broken records.

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/eter-m26.shtml __________________________________________

Throughout the film, a useful indicator for when a particular event is taking place is Clementine's hair color. Any time she is shown with blue hair indicates something in the present or a memory from the recent past (from about the time of the couple's disengagement). Clementine has green hair during the couple's first encounter, and shortly changes it to red when they become romantically involved. She then changes her hair color to 'tangerine' orange as their disengagement nears.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Sunshine_of_the_Spotless_Mind

That's interesting. Polish science fiction meaning "Solaris"?