From a character standpoint, to me the most interesting thing about PANIC ROOM is that Meg, the Protagonist, has no Mentors as such (except for possibly maybe Sarah, who IIRC spurs Meg on to action a couple of times - and if YOUR KID is a mentor, you're in a tough situation!) She has Allies but no real guides - there's nobody (at least nobody available to her) who's gone through what she's going through. Usually there's a Mentor of some kind, and when there isn't the Protagonist seems more isolated.

A few general thoughts about character: 1. The characters of the two real estate agents (both of them really stuck-up and bitchy, although in slightly different ways) were very well set up - but that did nothing to serve the story, as these characters only appear in the actual setup, they have noting to do with the actual story. So, good job of creating these characters - but they did not add to the narrative at all. 2. Meg, the protagonist, was reasonably developed, but still not a lot. In the script she is extremely insecure and naive - less so in the produced film. We know that she has left her marriage because her husband had an affair - but we know little else about that or about her. How does she feel about the betrayal? And, especially, did she choose to leave or did he dump her - knowing this would give me a much better idea of her as a person, is she a victim or a fighter (prior to the film start)? She does at least have an arc in the context of the home invaders, of going from a victim, to fighting back against them. As Deaf Ears noted, she does not have a Mentor. Sarah is her Attractor, Raoul is her Nemesis, Burnham is a Trickster to her (he is officially a home invader against her - but he does look out for her and Sarah’s welfare at the same time). 3. Sarah is an interesting character - pretty tough, but she has this physical weakness, the diabetes, which makes her need other people’s help. 4. Burnham is by far the most interesting character. The other two robbers were really flat to me - Junior especially, far too stereotypically stupid to be believable. Raoul was interesting in how cold-blooded and dingle-minded he was, but he was still flat, no complexity. Whereas Burnham had lots of complexity and contradiction within him. Partly developed in the script - but very well developed in the film. Right from the beginning of the home invasion, he was insistent that people were not to be harmed - he wanted to leave the operation when he found out that Meg and Sarah were in the house. But he was tied into it by the gambling debts he owed… forced against his will. Throughout the film he had to wage this battle - between achieving the goal of the robbery, and making sure that Sarah and Meg were safe. In the end, he forfeited his loot as well as his own safety and future in order to save them from Raoul. Even though he was not the protagonist, his story and arc were far stronger and more interesting than those of the real protagonist - I think!

BTW, these video clips about the filming of that long 3-minute shot through the house are really interesting. And the shot itself, in the film, is very interesting... but it reminded me of a quote in one of those Wilder/Diamond interview excerpts, where they talk abut camera work and note that: if your audience is actually twigging to how amazing a certain show is, you have ejected them from the story. And I think this one is a great example of this. It is a very very long shot - and as I watched the film, throughout this whole section my mind was totally on the technical aspects of the shot. The whole setup to Panic Room is very slow anyway, the long drawn-out part with the real estate agents (not all necessary) and then the very slow section where the home invaders arrive and this long long shot. So already the film is slow and (other than the hints from the title and previews) you don't actually know what the story is going to be... then you get this camera floating through the house, to the keyhole, through the handle of the coffeepot, up through the floorboards. Very cool. But a big and long ejection from the story. Seeing these clips of the making of it kind of gives away what happened - they all got so excited about the technical aspects of the shot (they spent what, 9 months shooting that 3 minute segment?) that they got so focussed on it to the detriment of keeping the story moving... It still is a very very cool sequence. But it does not serve the story.

Jacqueline, very well done, I don't have much to add. I gather from comments made by those who have seen the movie [I have not] that the movie version of Meg was less fragile than the script version. While that reduces the psychological distance the character has to migrate from beginning to end, it doesn't surprise me, probably reflecting an evolution of the character with influence from actor and director. On the one hand we, as screenwriters, are taught to create characters who have as broad a distance as possible to circumnavigate in their respective arcs. On the other hand, the weakness-to-strength dynamic probably still plays in the movie. And the theme you pointed out elsewhere -- about how Meg's own greed in wanting this big ass apartment is somehow parallel to the thieves' own greed -- provides a nice nuance to her transformation process, making the downsizing discussion in the denouement all the more meaningful. All that said, I concur Burnham is the story's most interesting character. Basically a good guy who feels as though he has kept getting dealt a bad hand. Now he sees his one shot to turn all that around. If Meg and Sarah aren't there, it's essentially a victimless crime. But M&S are there, and this presents a massive moral complication. Burnham is stuck between a rock and a hard place: the latter Raoul and his threat of violence, the former his morality. I believe Koepp and Fincher also felt drawn to this character as you could tilt the narrative ever so slightly in terms of page count and point of narrative attack, and Burnham could be the Protagonist. This is one of those stories where the battles going on in the External World -- here in the context of Bad Guys vs. Good Guys -- are supported by layers of 'battles' going on within some of the key characters, most notably Burnham and Meg -- in their Internal World. And that is what elevates this story above simply a genre piece.

To me, it is that parallel story of Meg becoming aware of her own "greed vs. need" thing (which is only the final moments of the film, and barely evident in the script) that really takes this film above "simply a genre piece." Otherwise it pretty much is just Bad Guys vs. Good Guys story, with the added (but not particularly unique) arc of Meg's growing confidence, empowerment, and action. And the Burnham story/arc. I like your idea that altering the page count a bit could make him the protagonist - I totally agree! I appreciate your comments and discussion, Scott.

And I appreciate your observations, too. You do a really good job digging into the story, peeling apart the layers. That is one of the primary values of reading scripts and it requires a certain type of curiosity matched with analytical rigor to do it well. But the benefits are enormous for a writer, sometimes specific to a script, but more likely the Gestalt experience of all those scripts with all those lessons, learned both consciously and unconsciously. At some point, a writer just starts to 'get it' and then, it's off to the races time! Which is to say, good on you. I hope the benefit you - and others - receive in this process is a positive influence for you.

Thanks Scott. I am really struggling - with how much time I can put into something that does not earn me money (yet!) but, at the same time, realizing the amazing value that I receive by really digging into good or successful scripts at this level of detail. I have a dream magazine assignment, something I have worked towards for years - something that will take me overseas for most of January - coming up. So I will probably participate little or not-at-all on the next two scripts. But I sure hope that we will continue this script analysis. I am very surprised by how few take part in the discussion - yes, it is time-consuming to read/analyse, but OH! so valuable. So if I am not there for the next 2 discussions, don't worry, I will be back by late Jan) - I love this! And yes, the benefit of this discussion is amazing for me. I am very much a structural person. Which is why, even though I am new to the screenwriting genre, I am relating t it on a very instinctive level. I hope, in your other thread, we can get to my question about mid-points (a structural question) and perhaps a question I should pose about dual protagonists. Thank you SO much for these discussions!

Congratulations, J, on your dream assignment. Go off, enjoy yourself, and write it well. We support you in your efforts and will be here when you return.

Wonderful observations, thought-provoking. Some more to share. Agreed on Burnham, he really engages. I was least certain and most curious about what he would do. That said, re change, I think all change belongs to Meg. She resembled her daughter but was not as tough. Not so at the end. All kinds of tough. Burnham was who he said he was all the way through, a decent fellow in a weak moment, and he illustrated his decency at the end. I think the two realtors do add to story subtly by reinforcing authenticity of world. Two busy people, professionals dealing with clients they don't comprehend and late associates. This single moment with Meg is a tiny moment in their lives, you feel that, and I think it makes the whole thing feel more real. And the one realtor had a big task, getting all house exposition out of the way. I'm fascinated by the husband. Great example of economy of detail evident throughout script. We know only what we need to. They're divorcing, in a hurry. And he's rich. That serves us fine til we need to know more. I think his single most important moment is when he knocks on the door. At that moment, he's suddenly entirely real, we feel him, a dad come running, to check on his family, makes him and the family unit feel real. (We also learn he's 50s, so Meg (30s) likely second wife, makes the end (no love reconnect, but Meg and Sarah strong and ready for whatever's next) feel just right.) The wealth is a huge conceit in film. How many of us can relate to buying a possibly 14 million dollar brownstone just like that. But we understand leaving a marriage fast with child and wanting to find safety. And Sarah with diabetes threatened with death, entirely universal punch to the heart, mechanism so obvious might well have felt manipulative in less graceful hands. But it all moves fast, and there's plenty we can relate to, so that stuff breezes by. And re the wealth, we need it, gets us into a home of a wealthy guy who left a 14 million dollar stash.

Good points, Atlanta. Especially about Burnham's lack of change - I hadn't thought of that. I do find him the most interesting and conflicted character - but you are right, he has not changed at the end, at least not internally (externally he has: his time is up, he's going to jail now). Whereas Meg has.