Going through the scene-by-scene breakdown, I was struck by how many subplots there are in this story. Here are the primary ones: Irving-Sydney Irving-Richie Irving-Rosalyn Irving-Carmine Richie-Sydney Richie-Stoddard Richie-Amado Sydney-Rosalyn Rosalyn-Pete Each of these relationships has its own mini-narrative, its own beginning, middle and end. And every single one of them is about a hustle. Each a bit different because of the players involved, but each with the characters using manipulation and deceit, back and forth with one another. One of the masterful strokes in the script is how the subplots intersect and play off each other. For example, after Irv has fallen in love with Sydney, then we meet Rosalyn and Danny, we KNOW at some point, that particular shit is going to have to hit the fan: The truth will come out and the two women in Irv's life are going to confront each other, which they do in the scene beginning on P. 84. We not only experience the story in anticipation of that, but also what will happen AFTER that altercation. In fact, looking at all those subplots, I can now understand more fully why when I watched the movie, I had such a feeling of impending doom after Richie forced Irv and Sydney to start doing stings: As long as Irv had Sydney and Rosalyn, he could cope with his life as a hustler. He had just enough to be making a living and was managing to have a dual existence. Once Richie comes along, all of those other subplots emerge, each representing a likely path toward destruction. Irv knew this. Richie, seduced by the lure of power and fame - and by his lust for Sydney - was blind to it. That's my first big takeaway from the scene-by-scene breakdown. How about you? What are your thoughts about it, the script, the movie?

I agree with you, Scott. What also stood out for me was the use of V.O., the pace of the story, and how flashblack served the story without interrupting its flow.

Shari, yet another movie that uses voice-over narration and flashbacks, two no-nos per supposed screenwriting rules, to great effect. The scene-by-scene breakdown really made me aware of how many flashbacks the story has. And yes, seamless.

Yes. Flashbacks work. But Tarantino would not call them flashbacks. For him a flashback is when a character has a moment recalling the past, as in dream perhaps. Otherwise it's just cutting to a different time. If you think about how people naturally tell a story, it's always a matter of something from the past, and always not in consecutive time order. It seems this should be the rule, not the exception. I'm no fan of voice over either. But there are some great filmmakers like Russel here, who make it work. And yes the characters and relationships are the story. He sets up situations and throws these heavy characters into them with all their baggage. It's completely about characters. I like how the grifters are so likeable and you want to root for them, while you come to hate the supposed good guy crime fighter, Richie; mostly because he caught the grifters. As Russel says, there is a love story at the core of this. There were those sub-sub-plots of Carmine-Dolly and Dolly-Rosalyn. They were just touched on. But they were very strong. And all these characters are strong protagonists in their own little stories. It seems Russel can't help it, no matter how peripheral the characters are.

I have to say, I think this script was structurally messy. Just too much going on. And I felt that way when I watched it... but the breakdown helps me understand why.

First of all, I love this movie. It seemed like a lot of people I talked to were lukewarm about it when it first came out, but not me. I thought it was brilliant. What I took away most from this script is how powerful character drive can be. In other words, whatever it is your characters want, make them absolutely obsessed with obtaining it. This collective drive, to me, is what fuels the movie. Irving wants... a divorce! He wants it so bad he's willing to have an open affair with another woman right in front of his wife. This of course leads to dramatic tension throughout the entire picture and culminates with a fight (is there a better display of conflict than a catfight?) between Rosalyn and Sydney as well as the greatest moment of jeopardy for Irving when Rosalyn divulges the information about the "IRS" to Pete. Rosalyn on the other hand wants... her husband! That's what she wants most, is for him to not cheat on her and raise a family. This of course leads to the conflict and tension mentioned above. Like every other character's "want" it creates a suspenseful plot as well. Richie wants... success, fame, notoriety, to be viewed as the best amongst his peers. This myopic tunnel vision drives him to create problems for himself that don't exist. It drives him to entrap someone who really isn't a criminal in the first place all so that he can fulfill his "want." Ultimately it's Richie's obsessive nature that's the driving force behind the entire film. Carmine, meanwhile, wants... his city to become prosperous! He wants it so bad that he's willing to take money from a foreign sheik he doesn't even know as well as work with the mob. Sydney wants... to be free and live a happy life with Irving! She goes as far as to entertain a relationship with the antagonist she despises most (Richie) right in front of Irving in order to obtain her goal. In the end, she's even willing to adopt a child that doesn't belong to Richie in order to see her dream fulfilled. All this conflict, plot movement, tension, suspense -- it all revolves around strong characters with big egos, ones who desperately want something and will stop at nothing to achieve their goal. That to me is great screenwriting.

I think this is a great example of having your characters ravenously obsessed with their goals. In addition, as I think Scott mentioned in the Argo series, throw fears (real or imagined) and blind spots into their mix. Complicated people with complicated relationships.

I think the supreme con artists in this caper are the two women, Sydney and Rosalyn. Oh how they use the men! What they lack in power, they more than make up in seduction and manipulation. And Irving realizes this. About Sydney: "She's so smart. She's different." About Rosalyn: "She had me. I was her mark."

Interesting observation. Yes, Russel says he likes to have strong women characters.

We're conditioned to watch simple stories. Try watching Sorkin's The Newsroom.

There's a difference between complex and messy.

Jon, that's an interesting distinction re flashbacks and useful when writing. However you'll see FLASHBACK used in scripts to cover any jump cut back in time. Perhaps we should crowdsource a new term for the latter. If Flashback specifically refers to a character REMEMBERING something, what would a cut back in time be called? Of course, you could just indicate it in the scene heading: EXT. RAIL YARD - NIGHT [PAST] Thoughts? Re sub-sub-plot you mention: That's one sign of a good script: When even the tertiary characters have their moments to shine, up to the point of their own subplot.

Excellent point, Kalen. One of the great thing about a character having a goal is that they are almost by definition then a proactive character. There is the goal. The character goes after it. Another value, as you point out, is it becomes the basis of conflict. You can open up a whole other layer of meaning if you consider what each character's need is, that is, what is going on with them psychologically that propels their want / goal? Why does Irv want a divorce, what need does that express? Why does Richie want fame, what need is at work there? I go back to my initial point: Every character is in a sense conning him/herself, probably unaware of the influence of their needs. In the end, each of them - more or less - realizes how they have been living a lie. It's fitting that Irv makes his confession to Carmine, a necessary step in his metamorphosis, becoming honest with himself. And in Russell's universe, it seems that's the only way Irv deserves - and wins - an authentic relationship with Sydney. In other words, he needs to stop living a lie... and he does. From a meta standpoint, that's why Irv goes through everything he does in the story.

Deceit will do that, Michelle, create a tangled web of lies. As the Protagonist, Irv has to go through one layer of confession to another in order to extricate himself from the hustling life. The double life he tries to lead with Sydney and Rosalyn is the height of Disunity. Functionally speaking, Richie comes along to blow up the delicate balance Irv has managed to keep, and compel Irv to get honest.

We especially see seduction at work with Sydney and Richie, not that she's trying to seduce him, but rather he allows himself to be seduced by the IDEA of being a Big Player. In my view, Sydney physicalizes that for Richie. And by having her, that would confirm to Richie he could play with the Big Boys. Re Irv: Your observation made me realize how reactive he is throughout the story. Once Richie comes on the scene, Irv is a pawn in a game, forced to respond to situations over and over and over again. He KNOWS this whole thing is going to go South. He knows it early. He warns Richie. But there's nothing he can do but go along for the ride and use his wiles as best he can to survive.

Not sure what you mean by messy. Life is messy. These situations are messy. In that sense it works perfectly. Plus it's based on a true story. But I get some people don't have a taste for it. My brother-in-law hates it. But he likes adult cartoons, which I can't stand. In terms of a character driven story, I don't think it gets much better.

Well, like Tarantino says, you just slug a new scene and it becomes obvious you jumped in time. Look at Pulp Fiction. You go to a scene and suddenly things are out of whack. A guy that got killed is alive. But you catch on. It's much like watching the movie. But in talking about the scene in terms of writing (as opposed to reading), even Tarantino tends to say flashback. So maybe it has to do with how much you want the reader to experience the script as if it were the film. I think it makes for a more fun read.

Yes. Good point. Our protagonist, "Mr. Mastermind" (as Sydney calls him) is mostly passive. All he can do is protest here and there, and otherwise wait; at least until Roslyn "motivates" him to come up with that final brilliant plan.

As Scott, noted, Irving realizes he is q pawn in someone else's game. He has no choice but to play his assigned role. It seems to me he's a guy who -- in contrast to Richie-- keeps his wits, never falls for anyone's con or self-delusion. >>> use his wiles as best he can to survive Right. As Irving says in a V.O. about his backstory (pp 8-9) "I learned how to survive when I was a kid...I was going to survive no matter what."