Scott wrote: "Nonetheless, we have a takeaway: We’re not Lehman and we don’t have the power and sway of Hitchcock behind us, so we must write set-ups that are locked down air tight." I'm not sure about this, but I think it may be true: If you're not sure if you've locked down your setup air-tight, then (also) have your "world" committed to that setup. And so in North by Northwest, first - This perhaps-not-air-tight element happens at the very start, and there are lots of other things happening; lots of energy. Second - From very early on, the "world" in North by Northwest is revolving around the notion that Cary Grant IS Kaplan, while he keeps insisting that he isn't. And perhaps part of the reason the audience is willing to buy in is that, with all the things that do happen at the start of the film, maybe they think (at some level), "I guess I missed how that happened." Or, they simply don't care (so much, or at all). It's akin to walking into a room and seeing a guy you met once, a few days ago, named Steve. But as you approach him, everyone is calling him Rick. You think, "Oh, okay." You say, "Hey, Rick." "No. It's Steve." And so, maybe the film should have worked a bit harder, added another 1/2 page worth of action and/or dialogue to make that setup air-tight. Or, it could just do what it actually did: Offer A basis for the mistaken identity, and then move on - with characters expressing 100% commitment to your setup.

"North by Northwest" was the first screenplay I ever read - and it promptly upset my entire inner clock as I tried to reconcile the 'page a minute' maxim with this monster! It's no faster a read today, but, despite all the clutter, it's still a great story - on the page and on the screen. It's sheer length was addressed in an interesting way in a screenwriting workshop I attended. Our instructor dropped it in our laps with directions to "make it 110pp by Friday." Talk about the biggest "note" ever - and on a three-day deadline to boot! Once we got over our angst at even considering rewriting industry icons, however, it turned out to be a great exercise! On the macro scale, did the story work? Well, no. The massive plot hole had to be addressed. It was also altogether too naive. On a structural scale, did we need all these scenes? Other scenes? Scenes in this order? Were we hitting the high points at reasonable times? On the micro scale, how do you convey those sweeping descriptions in 1/3 the words - or less? How much yammer will modern audiences accept - or need? As I recall, about 70% of the students stuck close to the original - plugging the hole and tightening - but, the other 30%, dragged it kicking and screaming into different eras (even a futuristic version), different locales, with deeper characters. All of them were lean, mean reincarnations of the screenplay. Reading it again, I can't help think this is a script absolutely ripe for someone's brave remake!

Scott; I would have come up with this logline for The Quest if you'd done this script earlier in the 30 days.. An Austin-based Elvis Impersonator is mistaken for a thief of rare Les Paul guitars and has to steal one from Willie Nelson during a music festival: "South by Southwest" BTW, on page five, I love the "In the world of advertising, there is no such thing as a lie, Maggie. There is only Expedient Exaggeration. Do I look heavyish to you?" A theme statement right out of the gate, immediately camoflauged with a humorous line. Deftly done.