How did they do that? I swear there's a touch of magic in the best of any kind of writing. You can pin things down, map out the story, identify character types, but it's still as if you're peeking into the lives of others like a ghost on a pleasure outing. This read better than most of the novels I'm reading these days, and those novels are now, ironically, written on the guidelines of film. You'd think taking the architecture and economy of film and fleshing it out with prose would make it better. It doesn't. Why? It's been so long since I've seen this film that there's not much visual memory left, yet the characters and setting are so vivid with so few words. Why? I'll have to read this a couple more times. Another thing I find baffling is both writers had long careers in TV, that place where they line you up against a wall and break your knees with a baseball bat if the "beats" don't hit on a certain page or you fail to have 6 acts within a 3 act structure and the act outs aren't good enough to make a person forget they need to pee, yet they both popped out and broke the rules of film. Beautifully. Is it a powerful urge and (dirty word coming up) talent for story that makes it such a beautiful script? And what's the prefix for the phone number scribbled on the side of one page? I'd like to call and talk to that person.

I respectfully demur about casting Samuel as the "trickster". He's the principal stake character, the one who has the most to lose -- his life -- if John Book fails. If Samuel is to be cast in the Jungian schema, he more properly fits the role of the puera aeternus. He is an innocent and naive foil played against the hard-bitten, all too worldly-wise John Book. And against the moralizing of his grandfather: What Samuel has seen with the unfiltered vision of experience in the world of the "English" clashes with the dogma Eli filters through the religious beliefs of the Amish community. Jung characterizes the trickster as a daemonic figure with "a fondness for sly jokes and malicious pranks, his powers as a shape-shifter, his dual nature, half animal, half divine. He represents "counter-tendencies in the unconscious...a suitable designation for this character-component [is] the shadow. (See Jung's "The Archetypes and the Collective Unconsciousness, Part V: On the Psychology of the Tickster-Figure.") Samuel's behavior fits none of Jung's criteria.

If there is anyone in "Witness" exhibiting trickster tendencies it is Daniel (played by Alexander Godunov). He has a mischievous grin, a sly sense of humor. He wastes no time laying the groundwork for courting Rachel. When he discerns that John Book is a rival for Rachel's affections, he pokes mild jabs at John Book's expense. But he's not a mercurial, wild-and-crazy guy by the standards of the "English" world.

pgronk, while I admire Jung enormously, I am something of an alchemist [in the spirit of Jung]. I pick and choose what makes sense in terms of movies and screenwriting. Therefore when I use the term Trickster, I'm not thinking about Jung's articulation, rather a version of it that applies - in my view - to movies. To wit: * Trickster is ally and enemy, enemy and ally in relation to the Protagonist. * In this respect, the Trickster functions as a test of the Protagonist's will. * These tests help to prepare the Protagonist for their eventual encounter with the Nemesis. * The Trickster can be perceived as being Id, acting on their needs and wishes [mostly]. In this respect, Samuel is very much a Trickster -- again think about the relationship to the Protagonist. * It is Samuel who witnesses the murder, thus pulling John Book into the plot. * It is Samuel who identifies the dirty cop which leads to Book confiding in his boss which leads to Book getting shot. * It is Samuel who pulls out Book's gun and gets Book in trouble with Rachel. * It is Samuel playing with the gun that leads to Rachel hiding Book's gun, creating a big test: Can he survive without the use of force / weapons? * It is Samuel who draws the Bad Cops to the Amish community, leading to the eventual Final Struggle between Book and the Nemesis figures. For all those reasons and more, I look at Samuel as a Trickster in Witness. I am inspired by Jung and have found much in his work that is translatable to screenwriting. And that is my primary focus in my studies in both Jung and Campbell. But I don't claim to be an expert in Jung, nor consider myself a 'Jungian' [whatever that may mean]. That said, thanks for your observation. There is no right or wrong with archetypes. They are tools we can use to write and analyze stories. So certainly, you and everyone else can have whatever opinion they choose.

Daniel does have a function as a Trickster, I agree with that!

I agree that we disagree on the archetypal characterization of Samuel. But to the meta issue: in your dramatic "alchemy" do you believe there always has to be a rep of the trickster archetype in a plot? (I certainly don't disagree that it's good thing when you can work one in.)

To get REAL meta, I have 10 principles at the foundation of my take on screenwriting. One of them is this: Character = Function. Movies are unique. Screenwriters have a limited amount of time [100 pages or so] to tell a story in which [typically] a lot of stuff happens and [typically] key characters go through psychological changes [metamorphosis]. Therefore no character ought to exist in a screenplay who doesn't provide a narrative function. In that light, what is a Trickster? One of their primary narrative functions is, as noted in this thread, to test the Protagonist, generally at least more than once. This to help push the Protagonist in their individuation / growth process AND prepare them for larger struggles against the Nemesis. Since a movie can't have a Protagonist start out in Psyche State A [beginning point], then suddenly jump to Psyche State Z [end point], they have to go through a PROCESS and incrementally change. Somewhere along the line, they will face some sort of tests to facilitate that process. And to fulfill that narrative function, more often than not, we find Tricksters playing that role. So to end this long answer, is it mandatory for a script to have a Trickster or Tricksters? I don't believe in rules, so I'll say no. However any story worth its salt will by necessity TEST a Protagonist. That being the case, it is highly advisable for screenwriters to develop Tricksters as part of the arsenal of characters they use to craft a story.

Oh yeah, character = function. I also consider the Trickster's script assignment to be to upset the protagonist's status quo, goad and provoke the protagonist to make the choice that will change his life. Particularly when the protagonist is initially too cautious. A classic example is "Risky Business", where Miles taunts Joel Goodson with his gospel of "What the fuck?" and then makes the call for the services of a prostitute when Joel is too cautious to do so. If Miles hadn't made the call... no risky business. In "Witness", Samuel wanders about the train station; he wanders about the police station. The 1st beat in the train station ESTABLISHES a defining characteristic of the boy, his uninhibited curiosity. It makes credible the 2nd beat in the police station where he wanders about and comes upon the display case. And the 2 beats makes it credible that in Act 2, he will also to poke around in the room and find John Book's gun. BUT note that Samuel doesn't make the fateful move to wander into the bathroom out of curiosity. He goes in because of the call of nature -- with his mom's permission. If nature hadn't called, the boy would not have witnessed the murder.

This past weekend I watched Witness and followed along with the script. It was a challenge since the movie diverges quite a bit from this version of the script. In fact, I watched the middle half of the movie without the script because it became too much work to follow along. The big thing I noticed was how much tighter the movie was then the scipt. Scenes were dropped, line removed, even single words. The script seemed bloated by comparison. However, even though the movie was tighter, it never seemed rushed. In fact, there were quite a few scenes where just a few extra seconds of standing, looking, reflecting, waiting, etc. gives the movie a unhurried feel. I was also struck by how the missing dialog was unnecessary. The scene, setting or dialog that was used communicated all that was necessary. Often times what was unspoken came through as sub-text. Less was more.

Patrick, as challenging as it is sometimes to read a script while watching a movie, especially those that are significantly different, it is a tremendous learning experience. For instance, whenever you come to a moment in the movie that diverges from the script, hit pause, and think about this question: Why did they make that change? Almost inevitably, as you discovered with cutting dialogue, it's better. Why? What was the thinking? Put on your director's hat and think on that. You can bring that knowledge directly back to your screenwriting.

Wow! Reading pages 63/64 and 71/72 are like taking a master class in subtext. "And tonight I'll let out those trousers for you." Hubba hubba!