I've been so slammed of late, I haven't gotten to the script yet. Will read tonight. But don't let that stop you from jumping in with your comments. Having gone through the script at least twice and going from memory, it is what is known in Hollywood as a "good read." Why? What is so compelling about the story? Yes, there's the twist ending, but that means nothing without everything that's come before it. Your thoughts? I'll weigh in with my own reactions late tonight after going through the script again.

Yay, analysis is back! Here are some general thoughts about the script. Needless to say, reading this script after knowing the ending is a whole other experience than reading it or watching the movie for the first time. I’ve talked to some people who said they knew early on that Malcolm was dead. Huh? I had no idea and I think most people didn’t know either and that twist is obviously what makes this film so memorable. However, I think there is much more to the script than the twist and there’s much to learn from it. There is a lot of deception going on in the story and one way Shyamalan achieved that is to play with our notions of how a story is told on screen. For instance, we just assume that two people on screen at the same time are able to see and hear each other. We assume that Cole’s mom Lynn can hear Malcolm in the hospital scene on page 59: DR. HILL: I think he probably has a phobia of dark spaces. Malcolm shakes his head. MALCOLM: He doesn’t. Lynn stares at Dr. Patricia Hill. LYNN: I know he doesn’t. The echoing of the dialogue “he doesn’t” makes it sound like they’re really interacting. Of course, we are making that assumption. The things that Shyamalan leaves out of the story are as important as the things he chooses to present to us. In my view, this kind of writing, attention to detail and skill of playing with the audience’s assumptions is what you get from a much more mature and seasoned writer, not a 27-year old newbie. The scene with Malcolm doing the magic trick with the penny is a nice little metaphor for how this story is told: It was right in front of us the whole time. There are some great scenes in this script. One of my favorites is the Italian dinner scene with Anna where Malcolm gives us all this exposition about Cole’s case and how Malcolm himself is dealing with getting back to work. And most importantly, here is where we learn why Cole’s case is so important to Malcolm: “But I’m getting a second chance here. To help again. To figure out what I missed. To right a wrong. I can’t let it slip away.” This works exceptionally well because he’s saying this to his wife. Had he said this to anyone else, it would have felt too on the nose. Here, he opens up to the person closest to him and the dialogue feels natural. And Anna’s only line in the scene “Happy Anniversary” makes it just heartbreaking, but also serves as a great distraction from the real purpose of the scene. That’s stellar writing in my opinion. I love the description on page 19: “Old Philadelphia awakens…”. You can tell that Shyamalan really loves this place. He made the city a part of the story which is really nice. Like the classroom scene on page 44 where the teacher talks about the courthouse and the lawmakers and it’s tied in with Cole knowing something that no one else in the room knows because of his special abilities. It doesn’t feel tacked on, it feels organic to the story. The Stuttering Stanley incident is also interesting because here we see the negative sides of Cole’s “powers”- he can use his abilities to help people or to hurt people – a dilemma for this young boy who struggles with how to deal with his situation. I like the fact that Shyamalan waits until page 64 (pretty much exactly at the half-way mark) to reveal Cole’s secret: “I see dead people.” It really kick-starts the second half of the movie. Overall this was a very enjoyable read. In my view, Shyamalan shows that he has command over how to tell a great story in a cinematic language. The fact that this film was made by the same guy that did Lady in the Water is just… well… I don’t have words for it.

What he said. Awesome analysis/insights, Teddy. Maybe he should have gone for rewrite draft #7 for Lady in the Water?

Great analysis, Teddy, an excellent way to kick things off. Two quick thoughts. First I remember feeling the exact same thing when I read the script the first time, then saw the movie: Shyamalan demonstrated remarkable control and restraint in a script that could have so easily veered off the rails into schlock horror or melodrama, such an assured hand. Second I read somewhere -- but have never been able to find the article -- that it wasn't until the 5th draft of the script that it dawned on Shyamalan: "Oh, my God. Malcolm Crowe is dead." Then as I recall, he wrote another 5 drafts before sending out the script. Something to remember when we lose faith in a project on just the 3rd draft.

Teddy gave a super analysis - great read and I concur. I wanted to add that I read the script while watching the film, aside from a few edits, switching placement of some dialogue, some cutting - there wasnt a lot of change from script to screen. This is the epitome of a great read...where you just want to keep reading to see where the story will take you. It's one of the few scripts that I can go back to like watching one of my favorite dvd's. Also, this is an example of if you can engage a reader enough with your initial pages, you can hold off on a revelationary reveal such as "I see dead people" all the way to the halfway mark, which would usu be considered a finger wagging no-no. This is just pure and simple story telling with a beginning, middle and end. No adherence to this has to happen on page 7 and this has to happen by page 25 or the reader will toss into the pass pile writng. Love it.

It's kind of tough to add to Teddy's critique. Although, I not only love the "Old Philadelphia awakens line" but the beat right after: "AND THEN 1997 COMES CRASHING IN." I actually had a bit of weird moment in my head where 1997 looked a lot like Breakin' 2: Electric Bugaloo. But then I remembered it was present day when this was written.

As everyone else said, this script's main strength is its restraint—the holding back of not only the big twist, but also the refusal to explain every single detail. We don't know why Cole sees dead people. Why did they choose him? We're never told and it doesn't matter. We don't know where the ghosts go once Cole helps them solve their problems. Again: it doesn't matter. However, that same sense of restraint can leave important elements unexplained. It's never quite clear why the deadbeat dad is so important. I get that Shyamalan wanted an absentee dad and couldn't make him dead because that would complicate matters. I just feel like the emphasis on the missing dad (the watch, the socks, the gloves) doesn't pay off in the end. Why not just have the dad be gone and that be that? Is there something great about the dad that the kid is trying to mimic? Clearly Lynn doesn't think so... Their divorce/separation is another story. How is the dad important to this story? Anyway, overall I loved the script, loved the movie. Have a soft spot for Shyamalan (I actually liked The Happening...)

"How is the dad important to this story?" On a psychological level I agree with you that the dad didn't have much value in this story – there's no tie in at the end with Cole coming to terms with the absent father or anything like that. However, I think it works as a storytelling device: First, it leads Malcolm down the path of a psychologist trying to find out a rational explanation for Cole's behavior - he sets out to search for clues in the real world. That's a distraction for him, so he won't find out Cole's secret and his own predicament too soon. Secondly, it's also a distraction for the audience so we will be “fooled” as long as possible. A red herring, if you will. Also, it sets up Cole's mom's situation – a single parent, working two jobs. She's increasingly frustrated not only with Cole's inability to communicate but with her situation in general - not being able to give Cole the attention he needs from a parent.

What surprised me initially is how rich the prose writing is in places. This is a deep, rich piece of storytelling with more description - and more directing of the actors - than most of us would risk in a spec. And it's a story that's stuffed full of big emotional scenes. Cole telling Malcolm his secret, the dead girls' VHS being played, Malcolm realising his situation, and the utterly wonderful scene with Cole and his mom in the car at the end. All moments that allow the actors to let rip with big emotions and big conflicts and dilemmas. I can see absolutely why this script sold - a whole new kind of ghost story, a killer twist, and characters who have big, powerful scenes that actors will want to play.

What struck me most about the script, is how well developed the non-thriller story-lines are. From the relationship and background of Cole and his mom, to the story of Malcolm's widow, which makes sense better once you know the twist - but it really is a sad story. Every character - major to minor - is in the midst of a problem. I think the real power of the film comes from how strong and clear the goals of the two lead characters are. Malcolm wants to save this kid (and subconsciously to learn the truth about himself) and Cole wants to find a way to handle his gift/curse. Their main obstacle, at least for the first half, is the lack of trust between them. This is a supernatural thriller with no villains, that relies mostly on conversations. Amazing.

I first read that quote on Wordplayer but I haven't been able to find the source either. Here's an in-depth interview with Shyamalan where he offers some background on writing The Sixth Sense and his writing process in general: Writing The Sixth Sense was the first time I sat down and said, “Now how are they going to sell this?” And I said, “In the end I think they’re going to sell it as classic, old-school horror.” So I said, “I need to have enough of that in the movie for that [selling point] to be a legitimate representation of the movie, and when I make all my choices in the directing and execution of this screenplay, and the choices of what scenes to keep, I have to make sure that when in doubt I’m always leaning there. ’Cause I gotta know what film I’m making, what audience I’m making it for, so in the end I’m not worried about the studio saying, “Let’s do a platform release.” --- And of course, The Sixth Sense isn’t a normal movie, but that even comes up in the trailer. It says, “Here, this is close enough to what you guys recognize, but it’s new.” --- The Sixth Sense started out as a serial killer movie [laughs]. Malcolm was a crime scene photographer, a burnt-out one at that, and not a great dad. It was Parents Day at the school, and the parents are in the classrooms looking at the artwork, and his kid’s in there, and Malcolm’s outside, smoking in a non-smoking hallway, and he’s staring at a wall of these kids’ drawings, and suddenly his attention becomes focused and he walks towards the wall and stops smoking. More and more we get focused on this one particular drawing, a crayon design, a star of some kind. We’ve seen it before, it’s a design that’s on the victims of a serial killer, and this child has drawn this same exact design in crayon. So Malcolm lifts the paper that’s folded over it to see who drew it, and it’s his own son. That’s the movie; it’s about Malcolm realizing that his son is seeing the victims of this killer. --- The film that was sold was the tenth draft. The first draft was a very powerful movie about a little kid who saw the victims of a serial killer, and the hunt for this serial killer. But it kept changing; bit by bit, the parts with the ghosts became more and more unique. I’ve never seen that expressed before, and then the serial killer parts—which were good—I’d seen before, and they started to go away, and go away, and go away, until I said, “That’s not even part of this movie anymore.” http://www.writersbridge.com/content/meeting-shyamlal

Good analysis here already. It’s a great script really, and surprisingly prose-inflected. Some of the best scenes in the movie are there, loud and clear and easy to visualise, in this script, word for word, beat for beat. It’s a very clear, emotive, artfully told story. And the end reveal is a terrific piece of writing, even if the movie used the Cole voiceover to great additional effect. It could have benefitted from a couple of trims, and a few were made before this made it to the screen if memory serves. The opening scenes are a little long and exposition-heavy, and this script violates a few supposed spec market rules. While this might have something to do with the period in which it was written, it’s probably more accurate to say that if the writing’s this good you can break and make the rules however you see fit.

Oh, and I seem to recall Night always claiming he wrote this with Bruce Willis in mind. In which case I must have missed his 'thick wavy hair', because it's been a long time since Bruce could lay claim to that.

Did you enjoy it? Why? Why not? Yes. For the most part, it was short and concise. In fact, the dialogue is fairly short and to the point. All in all, an easy read and easy on the eyes. What are the script’s strengths? Are there areas you felt were strengthened in the movie version? The execution of the story is ultimately the scripts strength. As for the movie itself, the hook is given away in the film's marketing "I see dead people", but unfortunately this happens at the midpoint so the first half of the movie is really devoid of any suspense. In fact, it feels like forever that we get to this point - something we already know - so the first half of the film feels somewhat tedious to sit through. But, this is ultimately a story about Malcolm, so it was wise to open with him owning the problem and Cole being his solution. As a result, we empathize and root for him, despite the fact we know he's going down the wrong path in his evaluation. His interactions ultimately serve as a gateway into Cole's world, so we get to see that part of the story's argument displayed in contrast. One part I've always been bothered with, however, is the fact that all the "hauntings" appear to happen in specific locations - meaning the ghosts are haunting locations specific to them that had meaning (the boy with his head wound, the hangings, etc.) This holds true, with the exception of Malcolm for obvious reasons, up until we meet the girl who's traveled quite some distance after being poisoned to death by her mother. To me, this entire segment felt somewhat out of place - like it was part of some other story plopped right down into this one to provide Cole an opportunity to recognize the purpose of his gift. It just doesn't feel organic to the story, especially the fact that her ghost travels some distance and seeks Cole out; this feels contrary to the central message that the dead don't know they're dead. On a different note, while the story plays by its own rules it sets up within the context of a film - I have a hard time not questioning its whole cleverness when thinking "between the scenes". For instance, when Cole comes home and his mother is sitting with an expecting Malcolm. This works within the context of the viewing the film as a film, but as a story, one's mind often fills in the blanks and I can't help but think ok, just HOW did Malcolm come to be sitting across from her? Did he knock on the door? Did she answer and invite him in? We know this isn't the case. Yes, we ultimately know he's a ghost, but in hind-sight, these scenes seem overly manipulative in that they don't seem to exist outside the parameters of what we see on the screen itself. Nit-picky? Yes, of course, as I can still enjoy the movie for what it is - I just force myself to try and not think about it TOO much. What takeaway can we glean from the script as an example of the supernatural thriller sub-genre? I think one of the things is to look at how, in different ways, people are haunted. It goes far beyond just ghosts. Malcolm is haunted by a failure in the past. Cole's mother is haunted by the unexplained happenings to her son. She's also haunted by a relationship with her own mother. The biggest takeaway is going to be the story's twist that many didn't see coming. I recall sitting in the theater about to see the film for the first time having read Ebert's review where he noted he didn't see it coming, but didn't divulge it. I figured it out before the movie started, which had me marveling at how M. Night was pulling this off as I watched it unravel real-time. And what elements of the script do you think contributed to Disney plunking down $2.5M to acquire the property? Simply put, I think the combination of supernatural with spirituality helped propel this sale. The story was strong, as were its twists, but I think the sense of spirituality captivated audiences who want to believe there's something beyond this life. The fact that it could be portrayed as an engrossing mystery/suspense thriller/ghost story elevated it to a wider audience who may otherwise not be typically exposed to deeper themes of love, loss and grief.

I love the conversation Malcolm and Cole have about the dad's golf cap on thirty nine. Malcolm has a line..."sometimes we do things to draw attention." It's such a great way to get them to talk about what's going on without talking about what's going on. Cole does things to hint to Malcolm that he's dead, but Malcolm can't find his way out of the dark. I think the dad's a total red herring, but more for Malcolm than for the audience.

Great job, Teddy. (I’m going to get down some of my own thoughts before reading on.) I saw the movie when it came out. And though I could see Bruce Willis in my mind at times, the ending completely blind-sided me. Not sure what that says about my memory, but I agree with Teddy that it’s almost impossible to anticipate. I was very moved by the script. Much more than I remember from seeing it. (I intend to watch it in the next couple days, so it will be interesting to see if I still feel the same way.) I was struck by the vulnerability of Cole and Malcolm along with the overall level of sadness. I didn’t feel much like the horror genre to me, though there were a few moments of fear towards the end. For me the emotional relationship between the two main characters drove the story, and my interest in it. If they were just hunting ghosts, I wouldn’t have been interested. In that sense it may be horror, but horror with crossover appeal. Which probably contributed to Disney’s interest. I live in Philadelphia. I can’t say the script screamed the location. I doubt any reader from outside the area could picture a Septa bus, or even knows what Septa means. And IIRC the film was made before they discovered and started to unearth the slave quarters near Independence Hall, though that might be in the historical background. So that angle surprised me a little. I felt a minor Act Two problem. I just remember wondering when they were going to get to where they were going and looked up and it was around page 83—the antique store scene, followed by the car crash. I felt the antique store scene was the weakest part of the script. It seemed too long and unnecessary. Finally I noticed a few things that seem to have changed in the last 15 years. There was lots of capped text, and lots of beats. It also seemed that the scenes were fairly long, though not when reading them. I was also surprised by a few descriptions that contained elements you couldn’t see—Trident gum and the father’s golf cap being the main examples.

I agree that it didn't feel formulaic, but when I felt a big moment, and looked at the page number, he seemed to hit the marks.

Nice insights. I take your point about having "a hard time not questioning its whole cleverness when thinking “between the scenes”. I just didn't notice it reading the script, being pulled through the story. After seeing it again I might have a different opinion, I admit. If the film is well made (or written) should we have time to think "between the scenes"? I guess I'm saying that story telling can have its own logic, as good lawyers well know.

No and on a first-run through, you're not going to notice them in the film's logic/structure. It works because 99.9% of viewers are general audience members who aren't privy to all the ins and outs, nor will they take the time to go back and analyze. They will, however, go back and buy another ticket to try and catch what they didn't pick up on the first time around. :) As writers though, we're conscience of logic and inference, especially between cuts. We're told to get into the scene as late as possible and exit as early, too, leaving what happens in between to be inferred by the audience. I think what made this work for this particular script is that it's very much like a magic trick: we were focused on what was going on OVER HERE, BECAUSE THIS WAS THE PART DEMANDING OUR ATTENTION, so much so we didn't see the actual trick. For those re-watching it, the purpose was to see how he misguided the audience within the scenes themselves - that's what we focus our attention on and therefore it works. Dead people see only what they want to see, but M Night only showed what he wanted to in order to support the twist. Had we been given a scene where Malcolm tries to set up his anniversary dinner with his wife, we may have been treated to a more humorous scene akin to Patrick Swayze in Ghost. It's nit-picking because ultimately it works, but it's my personal belief the story logic has cracks in it. Cracks that became a lot more visible in M Night's later works.

What wonderful observations on The Sixth Sense! Wow. I just wanted to add a note about the effective use of Voice. It creates visceral reactions throughout the script, and it begins right on Page 1, Line 1: "A NAKED LIGHTBULB SPARKS TO LIFE. It dangles from the ceiling of a basement," almost like a precursor of the ghost family that dangles from makeshift nooses later on. This first, silent scene set me up for a paranormal thriller while lulling me with a character I immediately wanted to care about. The unsettling combination filled me with foreboding and CONCERN for Anna. And, later, for Malcolm and Cole and Cole's mother. Which is what Mr. MNS intended, and that's my point. This very first scene created my worry and my anticipation for more. After I finished the script i went back to see how MNS accomplished this. I realized that what he did was introduce a compelling character and the story world in clear, sensual, emotional words that clashed on the key opposing planes of the story itself. The normal world: "Anna is the rare combination of beauty and innocence. She stands in the chilly basement in an elegant summer dress that outlines her slender body. Her gentle eyes move across the empty room and come to rest on a rack of wine bottles ... her fingertips slide over the labels ... a tiny smile ... " Then the paranormal world: "Anna turns to leave. Stops. She stares at the shadowy basement. It's an unsettling place. She stands very still and watches her breath form A TINY CLOUD IN THE COLD AIR. She's visibly uncomfortable." I mean, this even introduces the story's symbol for the presence of ghosts tormented by unresolved human needs. Finally the half-page scene bookends with Anna's LIGHT QUICK FOOTSTEPS now hurrying upstairs. And the click of a light switch. THE LIGHTBULB DIES. DRIPPING BLACK DEVOURS THE ROOM. Wow. I was super impressed with MNS's attention to the emotion he wanted to instill in the reader -- and his ability to create it. I hadn't read the script before, and the effectiveness of this pro-level writing skill was a real take-away for me.

Wowsers, this is really good analysis, first time I've properly taken a look at this section of the wonderful Go Into The Story and I've been missing out! Not much to add to that, other than I like how some of the most obvious (with hindsight) clues to the twist are got in relatively early, Malcolm's side wound, the sticky door, the non-contact with his wife - they're part of the film's normality before the notion of ghosts are mentioned. Also really agree with Teddy's comment on the love for Philadelphia - it makes such a difference to any form of writing when the writer is clearly speaking of a direct passion rather than locations and characters in the generic sense. Maybe what's gone wrong with Shyamalan since then is this passion had increasingly been diverted towards labyrinthine concepts. Thanks again Teddy (and all the other insightful comment to this post) - And of course, thank you Scott! Definitely following this'un in the future!

Great script. Looking back, of course, it feels strange that Malcolm has been living two whole years - after the shooting - with his wife without noticing the fact that Anna doesn't see him, hear him, anything. I mean I've had my share of cold relationships, but still...

Scott asked: What are the script’s strengths? Are there areas you felt were strengthened in the movie version? The strength lies in MNS's command of the theme of the film. Alienation. All the main characters, in one way or another are alienated, by death or circumstance, from those they love or have loved, or hope to love. Death in this case takes centre stage, but divorce is there, as is social status, physical disability, employer/employee hierarchy, and merely being different. The most powerful evocation of the theme of alienation happens with Malcolm, who is ultimately and completely alienated. He’s dead, he just doesn’t know it. It is mirrored in Cole, who see’s the dead, but nobody else knows it. Understanding his theme means that MNS can, for example, write the father figure into Cole’s storyline, and it resonates. It’s not a red herring. Cole is alienated from his father through divorce. He can write in the alienation that Lynn experiences in the home of wealthy woman during the birthday party scene. On the surface, it reveals that Cole is different, but underneath it supports the central theme – that of alienation. He knows that every relationship in the film has to be compromised by this disconnect. It is most beautifully illustrated in the one scene which, I assume, changed in a later draft of the screenplay. The scene is between Malcolm and Cole that starts on Page 22, in the Den. As it is written in this draft, it is a reasonably well articulated scene where Malcolm introduces the concept of the therapist client relationship to Cole, and at the same time ascertains that Cole has a Secret that he doesn’t wish to share. To become privy to that secret, Malcolm needs to lure Cole into a safe zone, close to him. Cole’s emotional arc in the scene is from being open to Malcolm at the beginning, a normal boy playing with his toys, to being completely closed, in a foetal position, almost autistic, by the end. In this draft, the alienation within the relationship is revealed to the reader through the two extremes, from open to completely closed. It’s a rough bit of writing. In the film, this scene has been splendidly rewritten; no longer rough and ready, it’s exquisite in its subtlety. As screenwriters, we remind ourselves of the cliché ‘Show, don’t tell”, every time we work at a scene. MNS took that advice to heart in this scene. Read it as it is written, then watch the way the scene is realised on screen. He has found a device that reveals the distance between Malcolm and Cole, and it is superbly visual. Malcolm invites Cole to sit close to him, and plays a mind-reading game to achieve that goal. The game illustrates the therapist client relationship, and it illustrates the fragility of the relationship between them. If Malcolm ‘mind-reads’ what Cole is thinking, Cole steps forward a pace. If he gets it wrong, Cole retreats. And interestingly enough, every time Malcolm gets it wrong and Cole retreats, it’s because Malcolm has made a statement that flies in the face of the theme of alienation. “Your Dad gave you that watch as a present” – step back. “You’re a good student, and you’ve never really been in any serious trouble” – step back. “You saw that on TV?”, a normal place to see violence - step back. This example of virtuoso screenwriting reveals visually what’s happening on an unseen level between them, quite brilliantly. In the new version, Cole’s arc is from closed to closed, but Cole has shown a chink in his armour by revealing a little of himself in the middle of the scene. Malcolm has failed to achieve his goal of getting Cole close to him and open, but in the subtle game that’s taking place between them, there is now hope of that happening. Scott asked: “What elements of the script do you think contributed to Disney plunking down $2.5M to acquire the property?” I would suggest two things. The first is the theme, it is universal. We all feel alienated in some way from each other. We delight in taking solace and, in the therapeutic environment of a dark theatre, vicariously sharing in that journey of relationship healing with the characters in the story. Secondly, I’m hoping that the execs saw that MNS was capable of some brilliant screenwriting, and if what they were buying was good, what they were going to get promised to be even better.