Just Do It... NOW!

Don't wait for someone else to give you permission.

That's a trap.

You either want to so something, or you do not want to do something.

If you want to do something, you will find any way to do it – you will be relentless in finding ways to do it.

If you do not want to do something, you will find ways not to do it – and be just as relentless in finding ways to avoid doing it.

I used to work with a guy named Owen who did not want to work – and would do twice as much work to *avoid* working as he would have had to do if he'd just done the job. He would take pallets at the warehouse and reorganize them so that it looked like he'd done the assigned work. If he'd just done the work assigned to him, he'd probably have worked *less* - but if you don't want to do something you will find a million excuses and side tasks to do instead of what you are supposed to be doing.

I know this first hand because there are times when I need to write an article, but instead I work on a script... and times I need to work on a script, but instead I write an article. You have to want to do something, or you will never get it done.

Don't create your own obstacles – if you want ti do something, just do it.

There's a guy on a message board who hasn't written his first screenplay yet, because he's waiting until he has the right connections to sell it. That really doesn't make much sense. Let's say he makes some great connections and they ask to read his script – do you really think they will wait for him to write it and rewrite it and get it good enough for that big connection to read?

Don't wait for things that you can't control – do the things you can control.

I'm on vacation in my hometown, and Sunday night I hung out with a couple of guys I used to make short films with way back when we were in community college. All of us are blue collar guys - no money, but we had a love for film. We spent every spare cent that didn't go to rent and food on films – and sometimes the food money got spent. Lots of the night's conversation was about the old days...

When I was in community college (Diablo Valley College – home of the sex for grades scandal!) I had a full schedule of classes, and two part time jobs that added up to over 40 hours. I have lived on my own since turning 18, and before that I was responsible for paying bills at home... and had a full time job at a movie theater while I was in High School. Before that, I had a variety of jobs going all the way back to moving a half dozen lawns in my neighborhood. My buddies had similar lives – they had jobs and took a full load of classes, and we decided to sleep when we died. Um, wish I'd banked some sleep when I was a kid!

So, Sunday night we talked about how we could not afford film, so we would make flip book animation with note pads. Van would storyboard scenes for films he planned to shoot. John got into acting and stage direction because you didn't have to buy film (he was also the DP for a lot of film students – so that he could make films that someone else paid for).

My first little film starred my roommate (another guy who worked at KMart) and was made in an hour or two before we went to work... while we were doing laundry at the laundromat. Between my jobs and my classes and seeing movies, *making* movies was hard to find time for. So I planned ahead. I had my story boarded and a shot list and all of the props were in an old paint bucket by the front door of the apartment. When both of us were free during the same time period – doing laundry - all of the stuff was ready. We went to the Laundramat, and while Dave and I did our actual laundry, I also shot a short film called LAUNDRA-MATT about a guy named Matt doing his laundry. I mean, what else do you do while waiting for your clothes to dry? Oh, yeah – homework. Well, this was *my* homework, sort of.

I ticked off the shots on the shot list, I had the boards so that I knew the angles, and made a 3.5 minute short film in about an hour - we both got our laundry done and got to work on time. Now here's the kicker: this was film and I had no editing equipment at the time, so it had to be shot *in order* in the camera and every single take had to work. A mistake would ruin the whole film. Not only were there no mistakes, at the end my crazy roommate did a stunt that was *suggested* in the script - but he went ahead and did it! He crawled into the big dryer, put in some quarters, and hit the start button... and did a revolution or two! Guy could have been killed. Instead - absolutely the most amazing ending ever!

And my two pals had similar stories of their first films - one worked a construction crew and the other installed carpet full time. They had also carefully planned their films so that when they had the time, none of it went to waste. We all found the time to make our films, instead of waiting for the perfect conditions or waiting for someone to give us permission. We just did it. Van mad a documentary that won some festivals and *sold* to the government for about a dollar fifty. He may have bought the pitcher that week.

You don't need to wait for Hollywood to hire you, you can just do it yourself. Write your scripts, make your films, write your novel, do whatever the heck you want to do (within the law... okay, if you shoot a film without a permit don't tell me). Don't wait for permission. Make a plan on how to get it done, and then just do it.

OUR FILM PROJECT

So, the reason for our meeting was our movie. Because I'm not as smart as I look, after everybody I know made their own film... I decided it was time for me to make my own. What was I waiting for? Permission? DON'T WAIT FOR PERMISSION! (this means me!) So a couple of years ago I decided to make my own movie with my two oldest friends and started writing a script and then got sidetracked by a paid gig – I think the 80s horror movie remake – and kept putting off writing the script because it seemed like a crazy longshot to me...

And it probably *is* a crazy longshot – but what the heck?

Part of the reason for making the film is so that I have some real-world experience making a no-budget film so that I can write some new articles to go with the thirteen articles I wrote for the Independent Film Channel Magazine many years ago on low budget screenwriting... and end up with a book on how to write and make your own film. That's why I'm not taking this project to some producer or distrib connection for funding – the person who buys the book won't have that ability. But we did talk about crowd-funding, since everyone I know is using that method to fund their little films. Originally I was going to credit card the film, but that seems so 90s now (wait a minute – HOLLYWOOD SHUFFLE was made in the *80s*!), so we'll probably put together some Kickstarter page to fund the film. We aren't waiting for someone's permission – we're just making the movie.

My dad asked me about distribution, and that's a very good question. A couple of years ago I “test pitched” my story idea to low end distribs to see if they might be interested. Because this is *not* a horror movie, I was worried that it might not have a market. But the distribs all seemed very interested in the story and genre and a couple offered to help me find funding for it...only problem with that is that they would then own the film and if it was a hit *they* would make all of the money. Um, even though this is to get experience for a book and work with my buddies, I'd still like to make some money – since I'll be calling in favors and working my butt off for free to make it. But here's the thing – if every distrib says no to the finished film, it's not over! We can self distrib and do streaming online and all kinds of other ways to get the film to the audience. I'll just do that.

Part of our meeting was on making a poster and a trailer and looking at casting possibilities. Our biggest issue right now is that John is working a construction job that will take him to the end of the year, so we've postponed production until early next year. Instead of *waiting* for John to be finished with his job, we're going to do all of our prep work and pre-production and build props and maybe set elements. By the time John is available we will have everything planned out and be ready to make the film. We aren't going to let this stop us – or even slow us down. When there is some hurdle, you jump over it. When one element isn't ready, you work on another element. You don't wait for someone to give you permission and you don't allow small problems to be big problems. Life is full of hurdles – you have to jump over them.

As a screenriter who always had a full time job (until breaking in) I realized that if you only write one page a day, that is 3 feature length screenplays by the end of the year. So I wrote 3 scripts a year while working full time and having a life. A page a day? Possible – even if you are busy. If you end up too busy to write your page today, *think* about the next two pages and have them planned out in your mind so that you can write two pages the next day.

If you don't have time to do the whole thing, do it a piece at a time.

Will you be faced with a million problems and a thousand hurdles and all kinds of great reasons *not* to do something? Of course! But if you want to do it, you will find the way to get it done. If you aren't motivated to get it done, you need to spend some time on introspection to figure out why – maybe you really don't want to write scripts or make movies. Maybe what you want to do is... sing!

- Bill

CIRCLE OF ENEMIES is here!

Today is the day.

A few years ago my friend Harry wrote a novel called CHILD OF FIRE that was picked up by Random House / Del Rey. Publisher's Weekly gave it a starred review. It was also one of their best novels of the year. Everybody loved it. Last year the second novel in the series GAME OF CAGES came out. Once again - great starred review in Publisher's Weekly. Good reviews every place else. Hey, that Harry can write!



TODAY the third book in the series, CIRCLE OF ENEMIES, comes out in paperback. Publisher's Weekly *again* gave it a great starred review. Harry is three for three in the great reviews derby!

The new book is on bookstore shelves today, and available at Amazon and B&N Online, and maybe in airports and drugstores.

Last time I posted about CIRCLE OF ENEMIES I put up the trailer they made for all three books - and unlike those boring book trailers where the pudgy writer holds up a copy of his books and while the announcer tells you how great it is, the the writer says, "I'm James Patterson, read this week's book with my name on it", this is more like a movie trailer... kinda cool!



The other thing they are doing is selling the first two books in the series on Kindle (and other e-book platforms) at a discounted price - for anyone who missed them.

CHILD OF FIRE - 99 cents.

That is under a dollar! For one of the best novels of 2009!

GAME OF CAGES - $2 off!

This is a limited time deal to promote the new book.





Harry has already finished the next book in the series, but how brilliant is he to write a book about Google Plus "Circles" and have it hit bookstores just when Google Plus is taking off? By the way - love that cover!

- Bill

The Pecking Order

Emily over on Bamboo Killers recently had some writer query her “production company” to see if she wanted to buy their screenplay. The initial problem with that is that Emily is a screenwriter who has produced one of her own short scripts and probably hopes to be involved in the production of her feature scripts. (Don't tell producers this, because there is already a “producer credit glut”, but if you are a writer you are creating and developing material and that makes you a producer, too – if you can convince the actual producer with the money connections. Nothing wrong with asking.) But just because you have those $20 business cards that say you are a writer-producer doesn't mean you are in any position to buy some dude's epic screenplay for a cool million – you're trying to sell your own scripts! The very first rule of querying is *NOT* to query blind – do your homework, know everything about the production company first.

If this person had just read Emily's blog (probably where they got her e-mail address) they'd have discovered she's a high school teacher trying to break into screenwriting. She's not going to buy your script. Emily wouldn't have made that mistake. She's smart enough to research first... and that's what her current blog entry is about.



Emily is great, and went out of her way to help this guy with his query letter so that when he *does* send it to someone who might be interested in buying his epic blockbuster script, he'd have a better chance... and the guy shot back an angry response! Hey, no good deed goes unpunished.

Meanwhile, on a messageboard, there was a recent post was about taking advice from idiots on the web. Only problem is - who are the idiots? The web is a great thing because a new writer can learn from a more experienced writer, but also – because of the anonymous aspect – you may be learning from an idiot... and learning how to do things wrong. And what is interesting about all of this is that often on message boards there will be someone who has had a small amount of success (optioned a script or something) who is giving advice on production rewrites – something they know nothing about. Now, this person may have all kinds of good advice on getting your script optioned, but they know nothing about production rewrites. And here's the thing – we are all idiots about something. There are things that we know nothing about... and you probably shouldn't trust us about those things that we have no experience in. I know some famous pro writers, and one in particular had an interesting "in" to the business but has no idea how someone who was not born with his connections would get in – so he never gives advice on that subject. I'm not going to give you advice on how to deal with $20 million movie stars... but if you want to know how to deal with Gary Busey...

Emily has found representation and her work has got her some meetings with actual real-live producers and at one point – almost an assignment. So, she knows something. The guy should have taken her advice, because that's stuff she knows about. Her blog entry gives great advice on all of those scammers out there who claim to be producers and want you to pay packaging fees or pay for coverage services. Make sure you do your research before you query... and remember that money flows *to* the writer.

There are levels of experience – and if someone has more experience than you do they may have good advice. A pecking order, if you will. Some people know more than others, and their experience makes their advice more valuable.

The thing about advice online is that you should never blindly believe *anything* – use your head! But also consider the experiences of the person giving the advice. There are a lot of people who use Stephen King's advice from ON WRITING for their screenplays – and although King knows everything about writing novels, when it comes to screenplays we are talking MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE... so maybe that novel advice doesn't transfer well to scripts? Think it through – maybe some of it does, and some of it doesn't. And sometimes the advice from someone who isn't as famous as Stephen King may be better than King's – look at the advice as well as who is dishing it out. But usually there's that "pecking order" at work, and the person with the most experience will have the better advice. IMDB the person to see what they've done, and if they're a one hit wonder or have a lot of exiperience in the biz.

If someone is a professional screenwriter, they probably know more about writing a script than someone who has never sold anything. There is some *reason* why they are a professional screenwriter. One of the strange things about advice online is that often the loudest voice is what people listen to... and usually the loudest voice belongs to the person with the least actual experience. On one message board I frequent there is a guy who starts a half dozen threads a day, all centered around him and his writing genius. But, um, he has never sold or optioned or got a meeting or (as far as I know) gotten a read off any of his scripts. Maybe you shouldn't follow his advice? Maybe the reason why he has had no success is because his advice is just plain wrong?

Also - watch out for people who have a lot of experience in one area, but none at all in another. They may have great advice in their area of expertize, but awful advice on subjects they don't know about.

Are you listening, Stephen King?

BAD NOTES

There's a company I've had meetings with that promoted a *suit* to VP of Development, and this guy has zero story experience but is still in the position to give notes – and his notes suck. He knows all about what sells, but nothing about *how to write a screenplay that works*. So his notes usually make the script worse - and the films made from them *don't* sell as well! He's using his "apples" experiences to grow "oranges" and it's not working. If I were him, I would find some assistant who knows *everything* about story and leave the notes to them. That way, he still gets to be the boss – but also gives better notes that don't end up trashing every script he touches.

When I first came to Los Angeles after selling COURTING DEATH to Paramount, I was looking around for some writers to swap scripts with to get feedback. It's kind of like dating to find a girlfriend – you go on a lot of bad dates! One of the “bad dates” was a husband and wife writing team who had zero luck so far getting anything sold or optioned, and I thought I'd be getting *two* opinions for the price of one. But after trading a couple of scripts, I realized they were not a good match. There was a reason why they had never had anything sold or optioned – most of their notes on my two scripts consisted of turning what was interesting and different into boring cliches - "What if he's a private eye?" "If you give him a pet dog he'd be more likeable!" - and the scripts of theirs that I read were trite, boring, and bland. It's like whenever they had a decision between interesting and seen-it-before they went with seen-it-before. Anything that was potentially interesting got sanded down to bland. And the problem was that they thought they were *right* - they thought their bad notes were good notes... and didn't realize that what they thought was good was actually bad (and vice versa). The *liked* boring cliche characters! They *liked* dull dialogue! They *liked* "low concept". Their notes on my scripts were all about turning it into mush. "You need to take out the exciting parts..."

This may be the same problem Emily's query letter writer has – he's defending his bad query letter instead of learning from someone higher up the pecking order who has more experience in these things. Know your place! If someone has more experience than you do, they probably know more - so you might be better off listening instead of talking.

After reading two of their scripts and getting their notes of two of my scripts, I figured it was not a match and moved on. As far as I know they never sold or optioned anything - which makes sense because they argued with all of my advice on how to improve their scripts. They *liked* bland and boring! And they wanted everyone else to write bland and boring, too.

I think it's important to consider the experience of whoever is giving you the notes or advice. If someone who can't get anyone to read a script off a query letter is telling you how to write a query letter – take that advice with a grain of salt. If *you* are giving the advice, make sure it is based on your actual experience and if you are posting under a pseudonym maybe mention your level of experience so that people can gauge your advice. And beware of giving advice to someone with more experience in whatever the subject is – hard not to look like an idiot when you do that. There's a guy on a message board I frequent who is always handing down proclamations way outside of his pay grade - and to most of us he looks like a complete idiot... but some people may think he knows what he's talking about. That's kind of frightening.

If you don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should shut up and listen?

We can all learn from people who have more experience than we do – as long as we don't fight the knowledge and acknowledge that we don't know everything. If you are below someone in "the pecking order" they may have knowledge and experience that you can learn from... and maybe you should pay attention to their notes on your query letter. You might learn something.

- Bill

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Wait... There's more!

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Kindle!

*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to create interesting protagonists! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is once again around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Back In My Home Town...

Back in my home town for a few weeks, and one of my first stops was Hop Sing's Chinese Take Out...

If you ever watched BONANZA on TV, Hop Sing was the cook at the Ponderosa - which isn't that far from where I grew up (though - it's fictional and I grew up in some form of reality). Hop Sing's Chinese Take Out may have been the first in a proposed chain... but I don't think that happened. Instead it's a single store. No seats, nowhere to dine in - take out only.

Map of the Ponderosa on the wall:

When I was a poor community college student Hop Sing's was close to the college (DVC) and close to one of my jobs (K-Mart) and *cheap* and great food. So I could easily dash there and grab some to-go food and munch it between classes or between jobs or just between. Even today, they have the best Chinese fast food I've ever eaten - for $5.75 you get a meal that makes Panda look like garbage. I had a #3: 4 *huge* prawns, almond chicken, BBQ pork fried rice (with a ton of BBQ pork). Their #1 is $4.99 now - BBQ pork chow mein (again - LOTS of BBQ pork), sweet & sour pork, special fried rice with the works... back when I was in community college I have no idea how much it was, but cheaper than McDonalds. I lived off Hop Sings back then.

Now, my sister works at the bowling alley across the street from Hop Sing's, so I visited with her before grabbing dinner and taking it to the park down the street.

So now that I'm here there will be some meetings on my no budget film project, and I plan to make a short film just for fun, and some other stuff.

- Bill

HOW TO MAKE A SCI-FI BLOCKBUSTER FOR LOOSE CHANGE – AND TURN A PROFIT!

My friend Marc Zicree sent me an e-mail about his new class, asking me to help him get the word out. If you don't know who Marc is, you can IMDB him - he wrote the Twilight Zone Companion and was head writer for the TV show SLIDERS and at least one of the STAR TREK spin offs... plus I think he won an award for a STAR TREK episode with Sulu. Marc and his wife do classes every month, and I used to put a blurb about them in my newsletter... only I have not sent out a newsletter in ages! So, here's Marc to tell you about the class...

Our class this upcoming weekend with Neil Johnson HOW TO MAKE A SCI-FI BLOCKBUSTER FOR LOOSE CHANGE -- AND TURN A PROFIT! is getting quite a response -- folks flying in from across the country to take it, people dying to learn the secrets only Neil knows.

It's funny -- just the other day an indie filmmaker I met was telling me that the way to make a film is to scrounge together whatever money you have, don't expect to make anything back and assume nothing will come of it.

Well, Neil, Elaine and I utterly reject that proposition!

(And who are Elaine and I, you might ask. We're Marc and Elaine Zicree, writer-producer-directors who've worked for all the major studios and networks, have hundreds of hours of produced credits -- including STAR TREK - THE NEXT GENERATION, DEEP SPACE NINE, BABYLON 5, SLIDERS, FRIDAY THE 13TH - THE SERIES, etc. -- and have been nominated for the Hugo and Nebula Awards and just won the 2011 Saturn Award.)

Neil's filmed with multi-million dollar budgets and budgets of only a few thousand -- and he's made a profit on everything he's shot! PLUS on his most recent film ALIEN ARMAGEDDON he got big-budget effects and name stars for a total budget of only $27,000!

Don't be left out! This is the real deal!

As a rule, shooting a movie with two people in a room talking for two hours doesn't get Hollywood to sit up and take notice. Neil's got fleets of spaceships invading Earth, major cities being nuked, big gun battles between aliens and humans, biomechanical monsters menacing beautiful heroines, the works -- LEARN HOW YOU CAN DO IT TOO!

To see the TRAILER click on TRAILER!

Log onto http://www.scifiblockbuster.com for more info and to sign up.

Class will be Saturday and Sunday August 27-28, 10-5, L.A. Valley College, 5800 Fulton Ave., campus center room 104, first floor, Van Nuys 91401; park in Lot 3 for free.

It's going to be a great ride!

PLUS anyone who mentions my name (Bill Martell) when they sign up gets a BONUS 10-HOUR DVD set of the class (a $249 value) -- FREE. Um, I want that. I'd be there, but I'm on vacation right now.

- Bill

#2

YOUR IDEA MACHINE never made it any higher than #3 on the Amazon Top 20 Screenwriting List...

IDEA MACHINE is still in the top ten at #6.

- Bill

I'm On Vacation

Thought I was going to have another new Hitchcock entry up today, but it isn't finished because I've been goofing off. Sorry.

Okay, here's a link to PSYCHO.

- Bill

Lancelot Link Thursday

Lancelot Link Thursday! Now that PLANET OF THE APES has been #1 two weekends in a row, do you think all movies should be about Monkeys? OF MICE AND MONKEYS? FINAL MONKEY 5? 30 MONKEYS OR LESS? GONE WITH THE APES? HOW GREEN WAS MY MONKEY? MONKEYBLANCA? If so, here are some articles about screenwriting and the biz plus some fun stuff that may be of interest to you. Brought to you by that suave and sophisticated secret agent...



Here are seven cool links plus this week's car chase...

1) All Of The Final Destination Deaths!

2) Police Blow Up Suspicious Screenplay - in case you missed it.

<3) Hunter S. Thompson doesn't like your work... and makes Josh Olson look like a pussycat.

4) Interview With The Writer Suing WME & other agencies for $8 Million Bucks.

5) World's Largest Stop Motion Animation (by Aardman).

6) Groucho Marx vs. Warner Bros lawyers.

7) CONAN writer on bad reviews.

And this week's car chase:



VANISHING POINT remake - Charger & Challenger.

- Bill
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: Nice Antagonists - Just because they are the antagonist doesn't mean they're not nice!
Dinner: All I Could Eat.
Pages: Working on the Action Book revisions... kinda.
Bicycle: No bike where I am.
Movies: Yes, I have seen FINAL DESTINATION 5...

Number 3!

Here is the Amazon Top 10 Screenwriting List for Kindle - 8/13/11:

Also #3 today (8/14) but the top two have traded places.
Thought for sure it would be #63 by now.

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Wait... There's more!

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Kindle!

*** CREATING STRONG PROTAGONISTS *** - For Nook! (coming soon)

Expanded version with more ways to create interesting protagonists! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is once again around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Next up will either be Dialogue (#10) (which needs me to write 3 new articles) or one of the others that requires less work.

- Bill

Fridays With Hitchcock: Foreign Correspondent (1940)

Screenplay by Charles Bennett and Joan Harrison, with punch up by Robert Benchley and James Hilton... and Ben Hecht.

Before Pearl Harbor, the United States was supposedly neutral in World War Two, and movies reflected this. Though part of that may have been to sell American movies to overseas audiences (including Germany), another part was that the country was divided on the war in several different ways. After World War 1, most people in the United States were isolationists and believed the new war in Europe had nothing to do with us. We were not the world’s police, we did not owe any other country anything. Unless the United States was invaded, it wasn’t our war.





Even after Germany invaded Poland and six other countries in three short months and Japan invaded Manchuria, Americans were still divided into Isolationists and Interventionists. One group thought should stay out of the war entirely - after the bombing of Pearl Harbor many people *protested* that we should stay out of the war, and the other group thought we should stop Germany from taking over Europe.

One of the largest Isolationist groups was America First - a strange mix of 1940s left wing peaceniks and businessmen who wanted to sell things to Germany ... and some reputed pro-Hitler pro-Nazis Americans. Basically, anyone who wanted America to stay out of the European War for whatever conflicting reasons they may have had. The America First group grew in popularity just before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, believing that sending military aid to England left the United States vulnerable to attack. Hollywood couldn’t ignore the war, so they made movies that either ignored both sides... or were strongly Isolationist or strongly Interventionist (depending on the politics of the producer and studio). Disney was an Isolationist and an America Firster and made cartoons against the United States entering the war. Other studios made films like A YANK IN THE RAF which seemed designed to show the brave British pilots fighting the evil other guys - the film still had to sell to Germany, right? Somewhere in here, the German Ambassador to the United States not only complained about these pro-Interventionist movies, but actually managed to get some studios to fire “non-Aryan” employees. Weird, huh?



A year before Fox made A YANK IN THE RAF, independent producer Walter Wanger, who flew fighter planes in World War 1, made FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT - a pro-intervention film that calls a Hitler a “Hitler”. A piece of pre-WW2 propaganda made long before Pearl Harbor and the rest of the Hollywood pro-Interventionist films that would follow. Wanger was Jewish, born in San Francisco, and one of the top producers in Hollywood. Also, a bit of a rable rowser - he made Fritz Lang’s YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE (criminal leads), John Ford’s STAGECOACH, and after going to prison for shooting his wife’s lover he made Don Siegel’s RIOT IN CELL BOCK 11 (pro-prison reform). He was making edgy films before that phrase existed.

To direct FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT he rented Alfred Hitchcock from David O’Selznick - and Hitch brought his favorite writers and crew. Charles Bennet, who wrote Hitchcock’s first sound movie BLACKMAIL, as well as THE 39 STEPS. THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH and five other Hitchcock films (plus many more screenplays you may know and love) and Joan Harrison who wrote five films for Hitchcock and went on to produce his TV show for a while and edit his fiction magazine and the short story collections. Both were British writers Hitchcock took with him when he came to America and both probably had family back in the UK in peril unless the United States joined the war. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT may have been pro-Intervention before any other film, but it was still a *Hollywood* movie, and profit came first. The film had to be a sell tickets, and lots of them.




Nutshell: Big city crime reporter Johnny Jones (Joel McCrea) is sent to Europe to cover the biggest crime around - World War 2. The newspaper editor is tired of foreign correspondents who just print government press releases and wants a tough investigative reporter who won’t believe everything he’s told. Jones is introduced to Stephen Fisher (suave Herbert Marshall), head of a United Nations-like peace group who are trying to stop the war from escalating. The key man on the side of peace is Dutchman Van Meer - a kindly old man. Jones manages to share a cab with Van Meer on the way to a peace conference in London, thinking he’s going to get an exclusive interview - but Van Meer just talks about pigeons in the park (really). At the peace conference Jones flirts like crazy with a beautiful woman, Carol (Laraine Day), who ends up being Fisher’s daughter. But Van Meer ends up mysteriously called away before he can speak... he just vanishes.

Before Van Meer’s next speech, he is shot dead by an assassin, there’s a car chase, all kinds of twists and turns, and the discovery that Van Meer may still be alive - a double was shot - and the peace group may not be interested in peace at all. The other players in the story are British journalist ffoilliott (ultra suave George Sanders), always drunk UK desk reporter Stebbins (comedian and co-writer Robert Benchley), UK-based bodyguard Rowley (Edmund Gwenn), and creepy Fisher family friend Mr. Krug (Eduardo Ciannelli). The film is basically a globe trotting spy story, much like a James Bond film, which uses a lot of great locations and offers us some fantastic lessons on Set Pieces, Speeches, Gags, and Leading the Audience.




Hitch Appearance: Walking down the street past Jones when he hears Van Meer's name... and jogs back to split a cab with him and secretly pump him for information. Of course, he only gets pigeon talk.

Sound Track:Alfred Newman – a good score that works for the comedy aspects, the romance, and the suspense. In scenes like the windmill sequence that are mostly silent except for the background noise, the music is unobtrusive yet still adds to the suspense and tension. The main theme is kind of whimsical and works well with Joel McCrea's charming nice guy lead.

Bird Appearance: Van Meer goes on and on about the damned pigeons in the park. Also a great scene where Jones hides in Van Meer’s cell when the villains come in to question him... and Van Meer looks *right at him*! The villains look where Van Meer is looking... and see only a bird. Jones is hiding in the shadow behind the bird.

Hitch Stock Company: Hitchcock often used the same actors again and again in movies, and FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is no exception. Edmund Gwenn starred in THE SKIN GAME way back in 1931 and WALTZES FROM VIENNA in 1934 and would show up in THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY in 1955 and do some work on the TV show, and Herbert Marshall starred in MURDER back in 1930 and did a few episodes of the TV series, and George Sanders was in REBECCA.

Experiment: Though some of the film takes place in London, the only experiment here is that this is Hitchcock’s first American film about Americans. REBECCA had a British cast, and once those soundstage doors were closed he might as well have been shooting it in England. But here we have a story about an American - a fish out of water in England and Europe... two places where Hitchcock would feel at home. So for Hitchcock part of the challenge was find a way to see locations that were familiar to him as an outsider would see them.

This was also a “loan out” movie - Hitch was under contract to Selznick, but Selznick was renting him out to other producers for a hefty fee and paying Hitchcock his normal salary... and pocketing the rest. This was discussed in more detail in the entry on THE PARADINE CASE. Selznick was famous for putting stars and directors under contract and then *not* making movies with them, but renting them out to other producers and making a pile of money. Though Selznick was a big name after GONE WITH THE WIND (which is still probably the #1 film of all time in ticket sales) he really didn't make many movies. Most of his income was probably from renting out people like Hitchcock.

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is a great example of Gags, Set Pieces, Speeches, and Leading The Audience. So those are the elements we will look at in this entry.




Gags: One of my favorite things about older films that we seem to have lost in current movies are *gags* - though gags don’t have to be funny (there are many serious gags and running gags in older movies) because Hitchcock had a great sense of humor, many of the running gags in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT are funny. Not laugh outloud funny, but a little smile that pops up in a few scenes.

When I say “gags” I don't mean jokes, like the newspaper managing editor (Harry Davenport) telling an editor watching the news wire not to declare war for a couple of minutes, I mean some physical or verbal bit that may be repeated throughout the story.

The first gag is all about names - the managing editor decides that “Johnny Jones” doesn’t sound dignified enough to be a foreign correspondent, so our hero is given the new name “Huntley Haverstock”. Every time people ask him his name, there’s a moment where he hesitates... and when he answers “Huntley Haverstock” they always give him a strange look. Sometimes he tries to explain that it isn’t his real name... and that’s what elevates this gag from just a gag: it is thematic. One of the elements in the film is that people are not who they claim to be or appear to be: every character seems to have a real identity underneath who they claim to be. So “Huntley” is really Johnny Jones, and a bodyguard is really an assassin and the peace organization’s PR gal is really the leader’s daughter and a homeless man is really an assassin and a trusted character is really the villain and Van Meer has a double who was killed and even “Old man Clarke” ends up being a hot single woman. Everyone in this film has a second identity, and all of that starts with the running gag about Johnny Jones getting a name change. Oh, and there’s ffoilliott’s name - which is a running gag in itself.




The next gag is Jones always losing his hat. There’s a great scene on the ship before it sales for England where Jones and all of his friends and family see him off. He’s going to a world at war, and they may never see him again. Everyone brings him gifts, including a bowler hat, which he models. When Jones takes off his hat to hug his mother for what may be the last time (a big moment) his little niece and nephew take turns trying on that hat and giggling. The great thing about this complete kid cuteness is that it’s *family* which amplifies Jones’s goodbye with his mother rather than distracting from it. When the whistle blows and all of the friends and family hurry off the ship before it sets sail... the little boy has the hat in his hand.




Throughout the film, Jones keeps losing his hat - and it’s not just a gag, it’s often an important part of the plot. Every time he checks his hat for a function or takes it off, it’s gone and must be replaced. But after chasing Van Meer’s assassin in Holland, and having the assassin's car just vanish near some windmills, Jones’ hat blows off across a field... and when he looks up he sees the sails of a windmill moving in the *opposite direction* as the wind. So the hat shows us the direction of the wind... before it lands in a stream and is ruined. Another hat falls off on the observation deck of Westminster Cathedral tower in London to show how far down it would be if Jones were pushed to his death (and then someone does that!). Later in the film Jones says he was “just talking through his hat” - the whole movie is about hats! Though it’s amusing every time Jones loses his hat, usually these errant hats also give us some story information at the same time. Both the name gag and the hat gag are not just amusing, they are critical parts of the story. They may have been *funny* but they were integral to the story as well.

Oh, and during that car chase there’s a drunk guy with a pint of beer in his hand who keeps trying to cross the street... but every time a car roars past. Finally he just turns around and goes back into the pub.




Another great running gag is the little Latvian man who seems to be at every function that Jones attends, but doesn’t speak a word of English and Jones (of course) speaks no Latvian. For some reason these two always end up hanging out together having a non-conversation (sort of miming) and like the lost hats and multiple identities, the little Latvian works his way into the story a few times. The great thing about this little guy is that he has the most expressive face of anyone I’ve ever seen on film - and manages to come up with the perfect expression to communicate whatever he can only say in Latvian. In one great scene there’s a knock on the door of Jones’ hotel room, and two men who claim to be the police want to take him downtown for questioning... except Jones slyly tests them, and they don’t seem to be police at all (more false identities) so he says he was just going to take a bath, and could they wait a moment? He goes into the bathroom, locks the door, turns on the water... and climbs out the window onto a very narrow ledge wearing only his robe and underpants!




A very tense scene as he moves along the ledge - birds getting in his way at one point - looking for an unlocked window. Finds one - Carol’s hotel room - and climbs into the bathroom. Carol has some people visiting in the living room, and eventually a guest finds Jones wearing only his bathrobe in the bedroom... and says something to Carol. Carol tells Jones he must leave the way he came before there’s a scandal, and that’s when the little Latvian guy sticks his head into the room, looks from Carol to Jones... and gives a mischievous smile. Soon all of the guests have left so that Jones and Carol can continue whatever they were (or weren’t) doing.




There’s a clever gag next, where Jones get his clothes out of the room with the two false policemen by calling every service in the hotel from maid to maintenance to room service to valet and has them all come up to the room at the same time - trapping the two false policemen - as a bribed bell hop grabs clothes from his closet and sneaks out in the confusion... neglecting to grab Jones’ hat, of course.




Another little one time gag is when a bodyguard hired to protect Jones turns out to really be an assassin trying to kill him... by pushing him off the Westminster Cathedral Tower... and the front page of the newspaper has an arrow showing the path of the victim on his way from the tower to the street. I guess those tabloids haven't changed much! Again – it's a newspaper reporter making the front page of the newspaper, and that's tied to story.

Set Pieces: The Cathedral Tower scene is one of several great set pieces in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, and this film (like THE 39 STEPS) seems to be a predecessor of the James Bond films and today's big summer tentpole action flicks. Hitchcock films always had big spectacle scenes – even the silent films! A set piece is a big exciting scene – in the studio days it was a scene so amazing that it was worth building a new set for, rather than just using an existing set on the back lot. Though not all set pieces actually meant building a new set, they were the huge spectacle scenes that would end up in the trailer... just like the big action scenes of today. If you think about those huge James Bond movie action scenes, that's what we're talking about... in the early 1940s.

Van Meer Assassination: Jones goes to an event in Holland where Van Meer is supposed to speak. There is a huge crowd outside the venue, even though it is raining. Dozens of reporters and photographers. Everyone has an umbrella... except Jones, who is in a trenchcoat. Jones has shared a cab with Van Meer previously and hopes to use this to his advantage and get an interview. He greets Van Meer, who just gives him a blank look as if he doesn't recognize Jones. Huh? Then a photographer asks to snap a photo of Van Meer... but there's a gun on the camera! When the flashbulb goes off, so does the gun! Van Meer is shot in the face and killed!




The Assassin runs into the crowd, and all we see are a sea of umbrellas moving as he makes his getaway. Jones gives chase – diving into the sea of umbrellas. Using the umbrellas as kind of a sea of tall grass that moves when the unseen assassin runs through is a great visual, and kind of the predecessor of those early scenes in JAWS where all we see are the barrels or the wake of the shark. It's *evocative* and interesting. A way to make a common chase uncommon and interesting. This is something we can use in our screenplays (I've used different versions in several screenplays – from tall grass rustling to a crowd being jostled). Find the creative and interesting way to write the scene!




The assassin blasts out onto a crowded street, Jones in pursuit. The assassin turns and fires his gun at Jones... killing a bike rider who comes between them for a moment. The assassin keeps firing – killing bystanders! There is a panic on the street. The assassin hops into a getaway car and zips off. Jones basically hijacks a car on the street, ordering the driver to follow the assassin's car. The driver of the car? British reporter ffoilliott (George Saunders) and Fisher's daughter Carol. They give chase – and we get a great car chase, with the assassin firing out the window at them. This chase on rainy streets would be at home in a current action flick – it's pretty exciting.




The chase ends when they lose the assassin's car on a deserted country road filled with windmills. This is where Jones' hat blows away... in the opposite direction than the sails of one of the windmills are turning. Something is strange with that windmill! While ffoilliott and Carol go to get the police, Jones sneaks into the dark windmill...

The Windmill Scene: Okay, they probably built the windmill set for this scene, since it's not likely they had one sitting around on the lot in Hollywood. Jones sneaks into the windmill, which is full of huge turning gears like an obstacle course of wooden teeth. Once Jones sneaks in, he realizes he is in the middle of terrorist central! The assassin is being debriefed in one area and other guys with guns are wandering around – it's like a James Bond scene where Bond sneaks into Blofeld's lair!




Jones hides behind the machinery... but his trenchcoat gets caught in the giant gears, pulling him into their teeth. He has to remain ultra-quiet (the terrorists are only a few feet away) and figure out how not to be ground to pieces. He manages to solve this problem, then climb to an upper room in the windmill... where he finds Van Meer. Wait – he's dead? Jones talks to him – discovers that a double was killed so that the villains would have time to drug and torture Van Meer in order to discover a secret clause in a peace treaty. Jones wants to help Van Meer escape, except for a couple of problems: Van Meer has been given a drug and is doped out of his mind... and the door opens and the terrorists come in! Jones climbs some stairs and hides... but he can't get away because he will make too much noise. So he's stuck halfway in and halfway out of the room.




The terrorists try to get Van Meer to talk – but he looks away... RIGHT AT JONES! Oh, and there's a freakin' bird flying around where Jones is hiding, not making it easy to be quiet. The terrorists turn to look at what Van Meer is staring at... and Jones moves back, hugging the wall, trying to blend with the shadows... and the bird flutters around and the terrorists think that's what Van Meer was looking at. Very tense scene!

But it keeps on going! One of the great things about all of these set pieces is that they have multiple suspense scenes in them and just keep ratcheting up the thrills. Jones manages to get up the stairs and out of the room where they have Van Meer hostage, but now the only way out of the windmill is to go down the stairs and across an exposed interior ramp... with the assassin and two men who are debriefing him *right there*. He waits in the shadows, and when the assassin pulls a sweater over his head – covering his face for a moment – Jones zips across the ramp to the shadows on the other side. Another great suspense bit... and a great idea. How many times have you pulled a sweater or sweat shirt over your head and been “blind” for a second or two? Using that in a suspense scene is genius!




Jones manages to escape, but when he returns later with the police, Van Meer is gone and all evidence that he was ever there has vanished. Jones goes to show the police the car they chased, opens a barn door to expose... an old hay wagon. The police are skeptical. But foilliot notes a homeless guy who was sleeping in the windmill as he rubs dirt on his very clean hands – that's no homeless guy! By the time, the police don't believe anything they say and leave...

Cathedral Tower: Once back in London, Fisher advises Jones that with his life in danger it would be a good idea to hire a professional bodyguard. Jones thinks this is crazy – he's a crime beat reporter who is used to danger. But by this is the father of the woman he loves, so he agrees. The bodyguard is Rowley (Edmund Gwenn) a little man in a bowler hat. When he thinks they are being followed by another car, he has their cab pull over in front of Westminster Cathedral and tells Jones they can lose whoever is following them by going up to the tower – which is open to tourists. Once they get up there, it's obvious that Rowley is not a bodyguard, but an assassin out to kill Jones. There is a great suspense scene on the observation deck of the tower – a group of school kids with a priest on a field trip of some sort, a husband and wife, and some other tourists look out over London from the extreme height... and we know the moment that Rowley and Jones are alone, Jones is going to get thrown over the side to the street hundreds of feet below. Splat! So we get an interesting version of the “ticking clock” - as each tourist leaves, we are closer to Jones' death! Part of the suspense comes from Jones wanting to leave – and Rowley finding some new landmark for him to look at from the tower. Just as the last tourist leaves, the elevator doors open with a husband and wife. The husband wants to look over the ledge, the wife is afraid of heights. Rowley manages to talk her into insisting that her husband leave with her... and that means finally Jones and Rowley are alone, and Jones is going to be thrown over the side to the street below!




This is where we get that tabloid newspaper front page with the arrows showing the path of the guy who fell to his death.

Captured! After several plot twists and some detective work, ffoilliott and Jones find the house where they are keeping Van Meer in London... but everything goes completely wrong when they go to rescue him and they are captured. It's a great reversal. In this scene they torture Van Meer to get the information about the secret clause, and because this is a 1940s movie where they couldn't pull a HOSTEL and use some power tools on the old guy, they do something very clever. They prepare to torture Van Meer, and the camera pans away to the other terrorists... who look away in HORROR as Van Meer screams off screen. Whatever they are doing to him, it makes the bad guys want to puke. There's an action scene here where they rescue Van Meer, but the cool thing is a “How Did They Do That?” shot of ffoilliott jumping out a window, and in one shot (no cuts) we see him fall out a window, rip through an awning, and race down the sidewalk. And it's George Sanders – movie star – not some stuntman. How did they do it? Well, it was an articulated dummy that goes out the window and rips through the awning, and the ripped awning covers the dummy as Sanders races out and down the sidewalk – his face right there for the camera to see. These are the kind of imaginative tricks that didn't cost a lot of money, but just looked amazing on camera. You could do them today in a low budget film.




Plane Shot Down: The ultimate set piece in this film is a Pan Am Airliner from London to the USA being shot down. This is one of the greatest scenes in cinema, and was swiped by Robert Zemeckis for CASTAWAY. One of those “How Did They Do That?” scenes. Jones and ffoilliott are in the coach section of the plane, Fisher and Carol are in the first class section, when an enemy battleship starts firing at them! This is a passenger plane! The plane is hit and starts going down... and we end up with a full scales disaster movie that rivals anything Hollywood has put out since. Not some little scene, this is massive. First we have the drama of the plane being fired on, when the United States is not involved in the war at this time – we are supposed to be neutral. People on the plane are *complaining* instead of panicking... until the plane gets hit and starts to go down. You know those live vests that are supposed to be under your seat in case of the unlikely event of a water landing? People are grabbing them, because they are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. One woman says that she refuses to put on the life jacket, they're silly... and then is shot dead when the enemy ship continues to fire on them! Okay – panic in the passenger section...




In the cockpit – the two pilots try their best to land the plane on the water, but they know it's not going to be a Miracle On The Hudson – they are coming in too fast. Now we get one of the most amazing shots in cinema history: without a cut, we are in the cockpit – water coming closer and closer and closer – and then we hit the water... and the cockpit window shatters and water rushes inside the cockpit and floods the interior. No cuts. Way before CGI and any type of FX that can make fake water look real. What you see on film actually happened! Sort of. The cockpit window was a movie screen that they showed the ocean getting closer and closer on. So you could see the pilots in the cockpit and the ocean getting closer all in the same shot. Then, without cutting, the plane hits the water and it bursts through the window. Okay, we have that movie of the ocean getting closer – and the movie projected on the window/screen shows them *hitting the water*... and that's when they empty a freakin' tank of water through the window – ripping the screen (as if it's glass) and flooding the cockpit. All one shot – no cuts!

Hey, but that's still the beginning of the sequence!







The whole interior of the plane floods! As the water rises, passengers have to find pockets of air near the ceiling as they make their way to the back of the plane (where there is more air... for now). Our four characters and all of the others struggle to get out of the plane. Doors are jammed. They find suitcases and slam them against a window until they break it... then they have to climb out – careful of the jagged glass and the crashing waves – to the roof of the plane. Some passengers die. Carol almost gets washed away as she climbs out – some stuntwoman was probably bruised badly, slammed against the side of the plane by the waves and almost torn off the side into the ocean (some huge water tank at the studio). The handful of survivors (including our four) get to the top of the plane...

Hey, but there's still more to come!






They realize the body of the plane is sinking, but one of the wings – which has been torn off during impact – is still floating. So they dive onto the wing before the plane body sinks! Most of them have to swim to the wing, and not all of them make it. The ocean is a volcano of waves. Our four and some others make it onto the wing... and the wing begins to sink! Too many people!

Then some other stuff happens...

Speeches: I probably have some Script Tip where I warn against speeches in screenplays. It's not that speeches are *bad*, it's that much of the time what a writer has isn't really a speech, it's just some guy talking forever with no one replying. It's supposed to be a conversation, supposed to be *dialogue*, but ends up one person talking. An actual speech is fine – as long as it's exciting enough to sustain its length. The soliloquy from HAMLET? Great speech! Write something like that and everyone will love it. That speech about the gold watch in PULP FICTION? Amazing! Write something like that and people will call you a genius. But just some boring stuff that drags on and on? No thank you. Bores the crap out of me in real life, and isn't any more exciting on screen... in fact – it's worse.

But FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT has some great speeches. The first great speech is from Carol, and it's part of a great example of leading the audience. When Jones meets Carol, he thinks that she's the PR Girl for Fisher's Peace Group and flirts with her like crazy. When the meeting begins, he tells her to come and sit with him at the press table where they can talk – no one wants to listen to the boring speeches. She sits at the dais in the front of the room near Fisher. Jones keeps sending her notes – trying to pick her up. When the meeting starts, Fisher notes that Mr. Van Meer was called away, but his daughter will be making the keynote speech in his absence. And we see the woman sitting to Fisher's left:




As Fisher continues to talk about his daughter and her qualifications, we keep seeing this woman to his left... and Jones realizes they are in for one heck of a boring speech and tunes out... But when Fisher is finished, the woman to his left starts to stand... but it's just repositioning herself in her chair... and Carol stands. This is a great example of leading the audience – we are sure that the woman to Fisher's left is his daughter, so when Carol stands it's a twist. But the writers had to *create* that woman to Fisher's left to lead us in the wrong direction. Without that woman, it would have been obvious that Carol was his daughter – no other woman on the dais in the right age range. An important part of screenwriting is leading the audience – creating the characters and situations that will make the reader/viewer jump to the wrong conclusion so that the actual conclusion is unexpected. Leading the audience astray is part of our job. If we didn't have that woman who was *not* Fisher's daughter sitting to his left, the scene would have been boring and obvious. This way, Carol being Fisher's daughter is a little twist.

To the speech – Carol stands to make her speech and sees Jones starring at her with puppy-dog eyes and it breaks her concentration... so she works off her notes. Except 50% of her note cards are from Jones asking her out in amusing ways! So she fumbles some more before getting on track with her speech – which uses some of the things that Jones said to her as examples of why they need a Peace Group. This becomes the “mission statement” for Fisher's group, so that we understand why an organization dedicated to peace is needed in this time of impending war. Using some of the things Jones said, makes the speech amusing – and in some ways part of the love story subplot. The speech is over before you know it, and very entertaining.

There's also a little speech by Van Meer in the taxi-cab ride about people feeding the pigeons in the park that is about how those seemingly boring parts of every day life are really what is important.

A great story decisions happens 59 minutes into the film. There is a plot twist and one of the characters we think is a good guy is secretly one of the bad guys. Now, any time the *hero* talks about how bad the badguys are, how they are morally corrupt, etc, it's just going to sound like a bunch of On The Nose speechifying. So the writers give this speech to... the secret bad guy! *We* know they are bad by this point, so while this villain is talking about how vile and evil the villains are, he is really talking about himself. That makes it ironic and interesting – and yet we still get that speech about how bad the badguys are. A great have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too situation, and it actually helps to shade the secret bad guy character! What could have been trite becomes fascinating. I think this is a great technique to put in your toolbox – have the secret villain talk about the villains instead of the hero.

One hour and thirty one minutes in, there's a speech by Van Meer and Fisher and his peace group. It's right before he's tortured, and the situation makes the speech work. If the villains are torturing a man to talk and he gives a great speech, we are cheering for him.

Eight minutes later the secret bad guy is caught and confesses to the people who trusted him – and the confession is emotional. All about having to live a secret life and lie to people who care about him. It's an apology and a confession all rolled into one... and might make you cry. Hey, it's also really some exposition about why he was secretly a bad guy... but you may be a little misty eyed and not realize that.




There's also a fairly clever bit where Jones has been rescued and is on an American ship – they are forbidden to give any information to the press, but are allowed to call a family member to tell them that they are okay. Jones calls his editor – pretending it's his Uncle – and then has what seems to be a conversation with the ship's captain that is really Jones dictating the story to the editor on the other end of the open phone line. This is a big pile of exposition, but because it is being done in a sly and clever way we laugh at the big blocks of facts – Jones is sneaking them right past the ship's captain!

The last speech is a rousing patriotic “let's get in there are fight the Nazis” pro-war speech. Totally political. The producer obviously though we should intervene and help Europe fight the Nazis... and that's the background of the story... but made very clear at the end. Jones is doing a radio broadcast from London when a bombing raid has the radio station people ordering him to the bomb shelter – but he refuses and continues his broadcast to America. When the lights in the radio station go out, he says the lights have gone out here in Europe, but they are shinning bright in America, and we need to bring our light to the rest of the world where it's needed. This speech is so well written you want to enlist! And that is the key to speeches in screenplays – they have to be *great*. They have to rival that HAMLET speech. They have to be as funny and fascinating as that Gold Watch speech from PULP FICTION. The speech itself must be entertaining and amazing – and any spare word needs to be cut.

Human Villain:




One of the great things that happens with the secret bad guy in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is that once he has been revealed to the audience we get to see how difficult his decisions are – his actions are against his country and that makes them against some of the country members who are his friends in the film. His actions will hurt people he cares about... and that makes his decisions very difficult to make at times. He is not an evil villain, he is a guy with different political beliefs than those around him who is trying to do what he believes to be the right thing... even though we see that it is wrong. It's important to make sure your villain isn't some cardboard cut-out Snidely Whiplash human cartoon, but a real person. Real people are more frightening than 2D obviously fake villains.

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is a fun action thriller that holds up pretty well after all of these years. The characters are engaging and the situations are filled with suspense and a fair amount of humor. All of this, and I never mentioned Robert Benchley's shtick – he plays the previous foreign correspondent to spends his time drinking to excess and whoring around and sending the government's press releases with his name on them as his stories to the newspaper... and his on the wagon and forced to drink milk throughout the film. He has an amusing phone conversation where he says the same phrase again and again, with different emphasis – so it's like a whole conversation using the same words. Lots of fun stuff I couldn't get to in these 6,750 words!

- Bill

BUY THE DVD AT AMAZON:










More Fridays With Hitchcock!

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Lancelot Link Thursday: The Final Thursday!

Lancelot Link Thursday! They are already planning a sequel to RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES... does this mean the apes have taken over our cinemas? If so, here are some articles about screenwriting and the biz plus some fun stuff that may be of interest to you or the apes who are reading this blog. Brought to you by that suave and sophisticated secret agent...



Here are five cool links plus the car chase of the week...

1) Ian Fleming (James Bond) on writing thrillers.

2) Following The Cliche

3) JAWS in the style of PEANUTS.

4) John Sayles interview. (because I'm a massive fan, I must link every Sayles interview, sorry!)

5) All of the Hitchcock Trailers!

And this week's car chase...

LINK BECAUSE EMBED IS DISABLED... It's that good! One of Lancelot's *favorites*!

- Bill
IMPORTANT UPDATE:
TODAY'S SCRIPT TIP: Always The Journey - if the hero kills the villain at the end, what's the use of watching?
Dinner: Baja Fresh Fish Tacos... black beans & rice.
Pages: Finished a script, and now working on a NEW Hitchcock blog entry for Friday... then on to the Action Book revisions.
Bicycle: Some medium to longish bike rides over the past couple of days because I'll be going on vacation... and no bike. Lots of eating too much and sitting on my fat behind. Better get some exercise in now!

height=159 width=100 ALIGN=LEFT BORDER="1" alt="bluebook">

NEW!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!

Fade Out

So, the original plan was to finish up this great blog entry that has been half written for at least a month, now, and post it for Wednesday... but I'm not sure I'm going to have time to get it done, so it's coming next week.

Instead I thought I'd mention that I finally got to FADE OUT on this new spec, and I did a read-through looking for screw ups today and I think I got most of them... and the script has some scenes that seem better than I remember them when I was doing the typing. I came up with a better ending along the way – the basic end in the same but the details are different – and overall I like the script. Now all I need is to sell the sucker...

But I finished it just in the nick of time, since I want to squeeze in a vacation (which is just working in some other city) and then head back to my hometown to hang out with friends and discuss the movie project... which has already hit a little bump. One of my co-horts – the guy whose *house* we're shooting in – is booked with work until the end of the year. So it looks like we won't be filming until *next year*. We'll have some meetings and beers and come up with a new start date and plan for the film.

The big plan at this point in time is to complete the revisions on THE SECRETS OF ACTION SCREENWRITING and get that sucker up on Kindle and Nook (hopefully by the end of this month) and then spend next month getting the Blue Books up there. I have another spec script that I want to write by the end of this year – and I might *just* be able to squeeze that in. This year is zipping past!

I am amazed that YOUR IDEA MACHINE is still hanging in there on the Amazon Top Ten for Kindle list. Over the weekend it dropped down to 15... and then rose back to #6 on Monday.

But I have a new screenplay! And hope to have some new blog entries soon!

- Bill

The Lost Hitchcock Film

So here is some background on this “lost Hitchcock film” THE WHITE SHADOW...

When Hitchcock was 21 - the year was 1920 - he got a job with Famous Players Lasky, an American film company that opened a studio in England. That company would eventually become Paramount Pictures. Hitchcock was interested in film and studying advertizing art in college and submitted some art for title cards to the new studio... and was hired. In the silent era, movie title cards had the minimum dialogue to tell the story - hand lettered in an easy to read style - and a small illustration. Hitchcock’s example for Truffaut was: “George was living a fast life” and the illustration would be a candle burning at both ends. Writing title cards was part of post production, because often a film changed completely during production and the assembled shots might tell a completely different story. Hitchcock told the story of a drama that didn’t turn out well, so the title cards were comedy dialogue that transformed the meaning of the scenes so that the film became a crazy comedy.



Hitchcock did title cards on numerous films... and was curious about films, so he asked questions and learned about the various jobs. Part of titling a film was reading the screenplays, and he learned how to write scripts and occasionally wrote a last minute scene for the films - kind of production rewrite work.

During this time Hitchcock directed a short film, NUMBER THIRTEEN (1922) which he says was never completed.

When Famous Players Lasky left the studios, British producers took over and Hitchcock was promoted to assistant director. On a film called ALWAYS TELL YOUR WIFE (1922) the director became ill and Hitchcock and the star completed the film - Hitch was kind of coy when he told this story to Truffaut, so my guess is that the star actually directed the remaining scenes and Hitch just did his assistant directing chores and maybe made a suggestion or two.



In late 1922 producer Michael Balcon began producing films at the studio and hired young Hitchcock as his assistant director for a series of films to be directed by Graham Cutts, starting with WOMAN TO WOMAN. Hitchcock was ambitious, and when they needed a screenplay offered to write it... and had a spec script sample he had written to show what he could do. He wrote the script, was assistant director, did set design (art school background), did the title cards, and was Graham Cutts’ assistant. He performed these tasks on the entire series of films: WOMAN TO WOMAN (1922), THE WHITE SHADOW (1923), THE PASSIONATE ADVENTURE (1924), THE BLACKGUARD (1925), and THE PRUDE’S FALL (1925). Of the five, Hitchcock said WOMAN TO WOMAN was the best of the lot. Oh, the film editor and script supervisor on all of these films was Hitch’s future wife Alma - these are the projects where they met and fell in love.

Hitchcock had a falling out with Cutts on PRUDE’S FALL, but instead of being fired, producer Michael Balcon gave Hitch his first actual directing job on THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925)... which will be the *last* entry in the Fridays With Hitchcock series.



The “lost film”, THE WHITE SHADOW, was the second in that series. Directed by Graham Cutts, screenplay co-written by Hitchcock who also did sets. Hitch had nothing to say about it to Truffaut, so I’m guessing it was just a job. These films were all melodramas, shot in 6 weeks, and none of them were very popular. This one was about twin sisters: one good, one evil. Maybe the first time they did that story, but I'm guessing not. It got bad reviews when it opened... many critics pointing to the silly script (co-written by Hitch). It would take a few more years for Hitchcock to find his footing and make BLACKMAIL (1929) before he started to become the director we now know. I suspect when these three remaining reels are restored and shown at that screening in Beverly Hills... it will be kind of a let down. Interesting to see an old film that Hitchcock did some work on, but not really a Hitchcock movie (he didn’t direct it).



The guy who *did* direct the film, Graham Cutts, fired Hitch... and began his career as a director. Later, when Hitch was gearing up to make THE 39 STEPS (the film that would get him to Hollywood) he needed a second unit director for some odds and ends establishing shots and the producer suggested... Graham Cutts. Hitchcock said he couldn’t hire Cutts, since he had basically began as Cutts’ assistant. The producer told Hitch that Cutts had fallen on hard times and really needed a job and was willing to do the second unit stuff. Hitch hired him. So it came full circle, and Cutts sort of became Hitchcock’s assistant. Or maybe Hitch was repaying Cutts for the on-the-job-training on films like WHITE SHADOW. Maybe we should do a retrospective of Graham Cutts’ films, as the man who created Hitchcock?

- Bill

Fridays With Hitchcock: Shadow Of A Doubt (1943)

Screenplay by Thornton Wilder, Alma Reville, and Sally Benson.

One of Hitchcock’s favorite films, a quiet little story of small town life and a visit from a larger than life relative who may or may not be a serial killer. Very low key - no chase scenes or fight scenes and all of the suspense is built around whether that adventurous relative is just an interesting guy or a criminal hiding from the police.



Though the pacing may be a little slow for 2010, the performance by Joseph Cotton is still great. Cotton is one of those underappreciated actors - he worked with Hitchcock and Orson Welles and Carol Reed starred in a great technicolor noir film with Marilyn Monroe as the femme fatale. He is not one of those Burt Lancaster larger-than-life actors, and you might think someone like Lancaster might have made a good Uncle Charles - international businessman who has been to Paris and Venice and the Orient. But Cotton’s performance in SHADOW OF A DOUBT is amazingly layered - he is both avuncular and adventurous. Charming and fun... but with an undercurrent of violence. When he smiles, you wonder if he’s ever ripped out someone’s throat with those teeth. He manages to do both things at once - so it’s not like there are two sides to Uncle Charles - he is always both charming and dangerous.

The key to the film is thinking that his character is that cool Uncle who brings you gifts and is fun to be with and tells these amazing stories of his exotic adventures... and also may be a serial killer. There are interesting scenes where he says inappropriate things (like at the bank) and that strange dinner table rant about how the world is really much uglier than it appears. Cotton goes from smiles to barely contained anger and insanity and back to a smile before anyone can react. He manages to give off conflicting vibes in every scene - nice guy and lunatic. Between this film and THE THIRD MAN you wonder why Cotton wasn’t a big star.



Nutshell: Charlie (Theresa Wright) is a young woman in small town Santa Rosa, California who is still living at home with her parents and siblings... and bored. She wishes something exciting would happen, like a visit from her Uncle Charles (Joseph Cotton) - a charming, wealthy businessman who travels the world and has an adventurous life. Her wish comes true when Uncles Charles comes to visit, with gifts for everyone in the family, and a beautiful ring for her. Uncle Charles plans on staying for a while, and has $40,000 in cash he wants to deposit in the bank where Charlie’s father (Henry Travers) works. If having $40,000 in cash in your pocket seems a little suspicious in 2010, imagine what that meant in 1943! Uncle Charles is a man of mysteries - he does not want to be photographed or have strangers know about him... and sometimes he behaves strangely. Charlie begins to wonder what her favorite uncle might be hiding... and when a pair of men show up claiming to be interviewing the family for a magazine article, Uncle Charles begins acting even more secretive. Young Charlie investigates, and discovers the two men are actually FBI Agents on the trail of a serial killer - the Merry Widow Killer - who targets wealthy widows. Is her favorite uncle a serial killer?

Experiment: Though the use of music and shots of people dancing is kinda weird, I'm going to save that for the section on soundtrack...




What is interesting about SHADOW is that it’s all about small town life and small town dreams. Hitchcock had adapted novels by famous writers in the past, and worked with some important writers (like Dorothy Parker) on screenplays, but this was the first of two movies that began with stories by big name writers - in this case, Thornton Wilder who wrote OUR TOWN... and Hitch followed this with a story by John Steinbeck for LIFEBOAT. I think it’s an interesting idea to use a famous writer as one of the “stars” of your movie - and in the case of SHADOW OF A DOUBT Wilder not only gets a story credit, he gets a special up front credit as well. Both SHADOW and LIFEBOAT were not adapted from previous material, they were original stories commissioned by Hitchcock (and the producers) for the film.

The general public read back then - this was before television, and even though there were dramas on the radio, there wasn’t a lunch box in America that didn’t have a fiction magazine inside. This was the pulp era - when some construction worker or plumber or store clerk would read short stories or a serialized novel or a chapter of a pulp novel on their lunch break... and after work, and maybe on the bus or trolley or train on the way to work. And their wives and girlfriends might read romance pulps, plus some upscale magazines like Blue Book or Saturday Evening Post which featured stories by people like Steinbeck and Wilder and other important writers of the time. This was a different world than today - when everyday people who barely got out of high school with a diploma - or maybe went to a trade high school where the focus was on *shop classes* - was still an avid reader. Of course, what they read might be the written equivalent of a Chuck Norris movie or an A TEAM episode, but they were readers. The cliche for a stupid, uneducated woman at the time showed them *reading* a romance or celebrity scandal magazine. The average person knew who Thornton Wilder was, and had probably read one of his stories. He was a *star* in the world of fiction - and that was part of the average person’s world.

So commissioning a story by the expert on small town life, Thornton Wilder, was kind of an experiment. What other movies were using *writers* as stars? This film feels related to THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY, another film about small town life... and murder. It has a casual pace, so if you pop it in the DVD player - be prepared. Think of it as a story of small town life with a touch of murder, rather than a thrill ride.

Contrast Concept: Probably one of the reasons why this is one of Hitchcock's favorites is that it's an illustration of his theory that murder should not be in some dark alley but in some suburban kitchen. Contrast is conflict, and using sweet small town America as the location for a dark serial killer story makes the story much more interesting than if it took place in the big city.

Hitch Appearance: Look for him on the train to Santa Rosa playing cards, near the beginning of the film.

Great Scenes: As a story about small town life, it’s set pieces are small as well. This is a film about details. The suspense scenes are realistic rather than operatic. We don’t get crop dusters and cornfields or fights on the Statue of Liberty’s torch, we get scenes where someone hums a tune at the dinner table and can’t remember what it is and scenes where a character needs to read a newspaper story at the library, which closes in 5 minutes. It’s almost like a Hitchcock film seen through the wrong end of a telescope - instead of being larger than life, it’s about those small things in life... like the faint engravings on the inside of an old ring.





Character Connections: In RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, villain Belloq tells Indy, "You and I are very much alike... Our methods are not as different as you pretend. I am a shadowy reflection of you. It would only take a nudge to make you like me; to push you out of the light." The protagonist and antagonist are the two most important characters in a screenplay, and showing their similarities is a great way to highlight their differences.

When we first see Uncle Charles he’s sitting up in bed smoking a cigar, maybe remembering a pleasant experience (which may have included murdering someone). When we first see young Charlie, she is sitting up in bed in the exact same position (though not smoking a cigar), dreaming of having an adventurous experience (though probably not murdering anyone). Both shots are the same composition and have slow dolly ins. Even though whether the camera dollies or not is the director’s job - the writer had to come up with the scenes of both sitting up in bed. Creating that similarity for the director to photograph. Our job is to set up the story and characters so that the director can find the perfect shot(s) to show that these two are very similar people. The writer also decided to give both protagonist and antagonist the same name - which makes the audience automatically look for those similarities between the two. There are many other things Uncle Charles and young Charlie have in common... and this helps us compare the two in order to find their differences. Belloq and Indiana Jones may be similar, but it's what makes them different that is important.

Uncle Charles lives a life of travel and adventure, going from one big city to another... and that is what young Charlie dreams about. She wants to get out of boring Santa Rosa and see the world. But all of the similarities between the two just serve to point up the differences. Uncle Charles has seen the world and hates it... hates the people in it. Charlie loves people. The more we see these two together, the more we see that they are not the same at all, but opposites. This is a great way to bring out character, and a great way to create conflict - Uncle Charles does something negative and Charlie does something positive to correct it.



Did He Or Didn’t He? The odd flaw in the film is one of point of view - we begin with Uncle Charles seemingly on the run from the law, and this make him seem guilty from the get-go... and robs the film of some suspense and emotion.

The keyword is *doubt*. The “did he or didn’t he?” plot is often used in thrillers, and we’ll take a closer look at it when we discuss SUSPICION, but since it is the central question in SHADOW it deserves a mention. In movies like MUSIC BOX and JAGGED EDGE (both written by Joe Eszerhas) the suspense is created by the protagonist (and audience) not knowing if the person they are emotionally involved with is guilty of a crime or not. In JAGGED EDGE workaholic attorney Glenn Close is hired to defend hunky Jeff Bridges on charges that he murdered his wealthy wife. Close falls in love with him... and the rest of the script explores that central question by bouncing us back and forth between believing that he's guilty as sin and a lovable hunk falsely accused of murder by an overzealous D.A. (the great Peter Coyote). We hope that he's innocent so that she can find love but fear that he's guilty. Did he or did he not commit the murder? Guilty or innocent? That is the central question in JAGGED EDGE and in SHADOW OF A DOUBT.




At the heart of every screenplay is the central question. It's what propels the story forward and keeps the audience involved. In a romantic comedy, the central question might be: Will they hook up or not? In a disaster movie it might be: Will they survive, and *who* will survive? The story begins with the introduction of the central question and then keeps us wondering how it will be resolved for the next 100 pages. This question is what keeps the story going - and will not be answered until the end of the movie. It is the fuel that propels the story, and the moment the question is answered, there is no more fuel for the story - which is why the opening scene where Uncle Charles seems to be on the run from the law makes this film less effective.

To keep the question “alive” and keep the suspense growing, we need to keep that question in the foreground - and not let the audience forget it. Which is where the doubt comes in. We need to doubt that Uncle Charles in innocent, and then when a dark cloud of evidence casts a shadow over him, doubt that he is guilty. The film is all about doubt!

SHADOW OF A DOUBT accomplishes this by having young Charlie discover evidence that Uncle Charles is guilty... and just when she has no choice but to confront him, counter evidence is uncovered that makes him look innocent. Doubt and doubt. There is also a shadow motif in the story - Uncle Charles seems to always be in the shadows - at the top of the stairs or in the corner of the room... and in the opening scene his landlady lowers the blinds on his window, casting a shadow over his face. When Uncle Charles comes to Santa Rosa on the train (pretending to be an invalid) he is in a dark sleeping compartment the entire trip... and when the train pulls into the station, dark smoke from the smokestack covers the station.




Doubt and doubt: Uncle Charles has gifts for everyone, but gives Charlie a special gift - a beautiful ring. Charlie notices that there is engraving inside the band - and wonders where Uncle Charles got the ring (is it stolen?). Uncle Charles says he bought it from a jeweler - and they must have sold him a used ring! Imagine the nerve of the jeweler! Later in the film Charlie discovers the initials are of one of the Merry Widow Killer’s victims... is her favorite Uncle a serial killer... or is it just a coincidence. We can never be sure one way or the other, because then the film would be over.

Doubt and doubt: Uncle Charles needs to be the first to read the newspaper, and one night *tears a story out* so that no one can read it. But he covers this by making a newspaper castle for Charlie’s little brother and sister. Was tearing out the story part of making the castle, or something else? Later, Charlie spots a torn out section of the newspaper in Uncle Charles jacket pocket... but he’s right there in the room with her so she can not grab it and find out what Uncle Charles doesn’t want the rest of the family to know. Is it an article about a criminal at large... or an advertizement for some fine wine on sale that he plans on buying to surprise the family? We don’t know.




Doubt and doubt: When the two Magazine Guys come to interview the family because they are the “typical American family”, Uncle Charles does not want to be interviewed - he says he doesn’t really live in the house, he’s just a guest. This is a great scene because the two Magazine Guys keep insisting that Uncle Charlie *is* part of the family so they want to interview him, which means Uncle Charlie must keep finding new and better reasons not to be interviewed... and this becomes suspicious.

Later, the older Magazine Guy takes a picture of Uncle Charles, and he *freaks* and demands they give him the roll of film, even though it will ruin *all* of the pictures they have taken (including mom baking a cake). Then he calmly explains that he just doesn’t like people taking pictures of him without permission - isn’t that his right? This ends up being a big moment for young Charlie, because asking for tyhe whole roll of film just seems like overkill. Why not just ask that they not use or print that picture? Young Charlie begins to wonder what Uncle Charles is hiding.



Doubt and doubt. Back and forth throughout the film - one piece of evidence makes Uncle Charles look guilty and then another piece of evidence is discovered that makes him look innocent. Just when young Charlie is *sure* that he’s guilty, the other prime suspect in the case runs from the police... right into the propellor of an airplane! Case closed - they are sure he ran because he was guilty. Charlie was wrong to doubt her Uncle Charles... or was she?

Because we are never sure if Uncle Charles is guilty or not until Act 3, we don’t know if we can trust him... and we don’t know if young Charlie is in danger or not. Throughout Act 2 we go from thinking Uncle Charles is guilty in one scene to believing he is innocent in the next scene. Back and forth - until we get to Act 3 and *know* he is the killer... and know that he will do anything to keep that information secret. Even kill his favorite niece.

The Subtle Art Of Murder: But even the murder attempts may just be accidents - that’s what they seem to be at least. Plenty of room for doubt.



Charlie has taken to using the back stairs of the house to avoid Uncle Charles... and one day on her way to the store one of the stairs breaks and sends her toppling down the staircase almost killing her. The step just broke. Later that night she examines the broken step - was it cut? Doesn’t seem to be, but *might* have been. Lots of doubt. Is Uncle Charles trying to kill her... or was it just an old step?



A couple of days later the whole family is going to an event where Uncle Charles is giving a speech, and there are too many people for their one car. Uncle Charles suggests they call a taxi for the family, and he will ride in the family car with young Charlie. Charlie knows Uncle Charles is planning something - but can’t just come out and say it - all she has are suspicions. The shadow of doubt falls over everything. She tries to get her mother to come with her in the car, knowing that Uncle Charles couldn’t do anything with a witness. But Mom wants to go with the rest of the family in the taxi - how often do they get to ride in a taxi? Charlie does everything to get her to come, finally convinces her, and goes out to get the car... But when she gets into the garage, someone has left the motor running and the garage is filled with exhaust. Big black shadowy smoke! When Charlie tries to turn off the car’s motor, the garage door swings shut and get stuck - accident, or murder attempt? Charlie is trapped in the garage and the exhaust overtakes her.

By this point, we know it’s Uncle Charles... and Charlie is pretty sure he’s trying to kill her, but all of these things seem like accidents. How can you accuse a family member of trying to kill you when it’s a stuck garage door?

Unusual Characters: One of the great things in SHADOW OF A DOUBT are the characters - when we have a story that is about small town life, we tend to focus on the characters... and usually the *quirky* characters. If you read my Script Secrets website, you may be familiar with my “Dog Juice” theory - that all dogs have the exact same amount of energy no matter what size the dog is. A Chihuahua has the same amount of energy as a St. Bernard - but what is too much energy for that small dog is not enough energy for the enormous dog. This is why a normal dog like a Retriever or a Shepard is a perfect match of dog and energy to run the dog. Movies are the same - you need the same amount of energy no matter how big the movie... and that often leads to more interesting and quirky characters being *required* in smaller films. As much as people may bitch about the stylized dialogue and unusual characters in JUNO, remove those elements and what do you have? You *need* interesting characters in a small story.



SHADOW takes many characters that might seem common and either turns them on their head or adds some quirk that makes them fascinating. By taking small town people and showing what makes each of them different and unusual, Wilder has created a story that is kind of a predecessor of TWIN PEAKS.

Charlie’s little sister Ann (Edna May Wonacott) is not sugar and spice and everything nice, she is not playing with dolls... she is reading books that are adult in nature and knows all kinds of things little girls just should not know. In one scene she’s playing, and says “step on a crack and break your mother’s back”... then *steps on as many cracks as she can*!



Charlie’s best friend Catherine (Estelle Jewell) is not some sweet small town girl or even some boy crazy 20 year old - she makes a pretty obvious play for Agent Saunders (Wallace Ford), the older FBI Agent... a man easily old enough to be her father and possibly old enough to be her grandfather. She flirts with him big time! Um, WTF is going on here?

Charlie’s father is not some boring small town bank teller, he has a hobby... he and his best friend Herbie (Hume Cronyn) read murder mysteries and try to come up with the perfect way to murder each other and get away with it. Most of their dialogue in the film is about killing each other and avoiding arrest - talk about TWIN PEAKS characters!



None of the characters in the film are cliche - they are as strange and individual as the characters from NORTHERN EXPOSURE and TWIN PEAKS... though they still seem “realistic” members of a small town. They may be exaggerated a little, but film characters tend to be a little larger than life anyway.

Small Suspense: Because this is a small story of small town life, it also has small suspense scene. Charlie searching Uncle Charles’ room while he’s downstairs to find the torn piece of newspaper... and when she can not find the article, she races to the public library before it closes at 9pm... running across a street against a light and almost getting hit by a car. She makes it to the library just as they are closing, but this is a very low-key race against the clock: getting to the library before it closes? But at the library Charlie reads a newspaper account of the Merry Widow Killer and one of his victims... who had the same initials that are engraved in the ring Uncle Charles gave her... and we get a great pull back and up shot making Charlie seem small and vulnerable.





Sound Track: Dimitri Tiomkin - a good score, the highlight of which is Franz Lehar's Merry Widow Waltz. It’s Uncle Charles’ theme song... and when Charlie’s mother is humming it at the dinner table one night and can’t figure out what the tune is, Uncle Charles says it’s the Blue Danube... but Charlie corrects him... which creates an awkward moment that Uncle Charles covers by spilling a glass of blood red wine. Throughout the film, we get the waltz and dancers when Uncle Charles feels murderous.

Hitchcock used music in many of his films, from Mrs. Froy’s tune in THE LADY VANISHES to the Mr. Memory theme in THE 39 STEPS to this interesting signature for a character. Uncle Charlie is not just the Merry Widow Killer, the Merry Widow Waltz is his theme, something he whistles or that plays in the background of some of his scenes.

Unfortunately, by the end of the film you will be unable to get the danged tune out of your head!

SHADOW OF A DOUBT is a nice little film about small town life... and murder. Not the kind of big spectacle movie we might expect from Hitchcock, but an enjoyable film about the truth behind that favorite uncle of yours.

- Bill

BUY THE DVD AT AMAZON:










More Fridays With Hitchcock!

NEW!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Kindle!

*** YOUR IDEA MACHINE *** - For Nook!

Expanded version with more ways to find great ideas! Print version is 48 pages, Kindle version is around 155 pages!

Only $2.99 - and no postage!