mafatty79 at 2014-08-19 09:36:45:

Thanks Scott for this great blog. I’m new here and I’m a retired attorney. I am constantly amazed at the treasure found here. Michael Clayton is special to me because when I sat my ass down and decided I had a story to tell this is what I did: reviewed Syd Field’s book (I had read it years ago), read Vogler’s “Writer’s Journey,” and broke down Michael Clayton, script against film, in an attempt to get a sense for pacing. I then bought MovieMagic and started writing. Twenty-three days after FADE IN I had a first draft. I’m glad I did it this way. Had I started with “Save the Cat” (or many other gold standard treatises), I’d not have written the same script. That story would have been scared out of me before I started because Michael Clayton does, in fact, break many rules. Nonetheless, I think it is a great script and fantastic movie. Among other things, it reveals how high-stakes law practice can affect individuals better than any other drama that comes to my mind. I’ve continued my studies. I have a better understanding for why the rules for writing a spec script exist. I’m not (as?) intimidated by those rules now as I would have been had I started there. In fact, had I known the rules before I started, I’m sure I’d have thrown up my hands and said “this business is insane ... not even going to try.” And no, I still haven’t sold that first script. But it was fun to write. I note in the original discussion back in 2012 the question was asked, if written on spec by a novice, what chance Michael Clayton would have had of breaking through the system to production. I think many know the answer to that question. Keep up the great work. I wish I’d known of this blog when I started. My learning curve would have been flattened a bit.

mafatty79 at 2014-08-19 10:01:24:

I’m wondering if others had the same emotional reaction to Michael Clayton(at the theater) as I did. One way I judge whether a drama has worked on an emotional level is how I and most of the viewers react at the end of the movie. If it works, I usually sit there through the credits. At the end of Michael Clayton, not a person in the theater got up early to head for the exists. In complete silence, everyone of us just sat there and went on that cab ride with him. Because I liked the movie so much, I went back to the theater just days later and watched it again. The same thing happened. I had the same reaction after Mystic River, Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Titanic, etc. I think Michael Clayton’s ending followed Billy Wilder’s advice to the T about how to end a movie. Don’t linger. I’m just wondering if anyone else remembers this audience reaction at the end of Michael Clayton?

mafatty79 at 2014-08-19 16:56:52:

Obviously, “Michael Clayton” had quite an effect on me. I reviewed the threads from 2012 regarding structure. Because I studied this script so hard, I thought I’d add a few thoughts. I am struck by Scott’s observation that a writer should keep a clear eye on the question of why does this story, in this way, HAVE to happen to this guy or gal RIGHT NOW. I believe an equally important decision a writer must make is where (or when) do you start that story. I also believe that a person is the person he or she is because of thousands of events experienced to the present of his existence. “Michael Clayton” is about Michael Clayton, a fixer. The stick of dynamite (inciting incident?) is the immediate (proximate cause, in law talk) which causes him to quit as a fixer. But thousands of other experiences in his life also set the stage for that decision. But it’s 120 minutes. It’s a drama. So Gilroy (brilliantly, IMO), with Arthur’s nearly four page dialog voiced over the frenzied activity of high powered lawyers working into the wee hours on a billion dollar settlement, showed us Michael’s ordinary world in a highly compressed yet effective manner. And talk about balls! Arthur’s voice was over action when Arthur was already dead! In that four page voice over, we learn a lot about Michael. “...Michael. Dear, Michael. Nurse Michael. Dr. Clayton. Secret Hero. Keeper of the Hidden Sins. Of course it’s you. Who else could they send? Who else could be trusted?...” And: “And here you are, sleeves rolled up, lips sealed -- broom -- dustbin -- bankroll at the ready! Fifties, is it still fifties? When you came to Boston, you remember? God, you must’ve had a thousand of them! The cash -- the smile -- the quiet word in the corner -- of course it’s you, Michael, who else could it ever be?.....” And we learn a lot about Arthur and the law firm at which Michael works: “....I realized, Michael, at that moment, that I had emerged -- as I have done nearly every day for the past twenty-eight years of my life -- not through doors of Kenner, Bach & Ledeen –... -- and that I have been coated with this patina of shit for the better part of my life and that the stink and stain might in all likelihood take the rest of my days to undo” Gilroy gives us seventeen pages (to the scene with the horses and the exploding Mercedes) because this is the inciting incident which causes Michael, at that moment in his life, to change. To decide he will no longer be a mere fixer. Would Michael have been a fixer a month later if his Mercedes had not blown up? I think so. But it would be bad form to put the inciting incident at page ninety-five. And a lineal exposition, starting four days earlier, would have been boring. Gilroy put a question before the viewer. What the hell happened here? I believe most great dramas do just that – ask questions. Citizen Kane? Chinatown? The Third Man? In my mind, they are great because they ask questions, and delay answers, early and often.

Scott at 2014-08-20 00:25:50:

Okay, I think we'll bring back the Script Reading & Analysis series in September. One per month. Same format. May even try the live TweetCasts. @mafatty79: Glad you have discovered the blog. Yes, it's chock full of information and I am in the process of creating ways to make the content, over 15K posts, more navigable for users. Re Michael Clayton: I know plenty of pro writers who swear by Tony Gilroy as THE writer whose scripts you MUST read. I concur. As to the ending, I think we're finding more latitude toward ambiguous endings, at least from a moral point of view and often even from a 'what the hell is going to happen' perspective. The movie Drive is an example, Driver wounded and driving away, and we don't know if he lives or dies. Granted Hollywood still prefers the proverbial 'happy ending,' but there does seem to be more room for nuance.