Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Analysis

OK, Here's the link to the screenplay: http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/spotless.pdf.

You'll have to get up and get the movie on your own.

Feel free to chime in whenever you’d like. The discussion is open to everyone and anything related to screenwriting and this particular movie.

You can, of course, post anything you'd like but some things to think about that we can discuss:

- Did you like the movie? Why or why not?

- Did you enjoy the screenplay? Why or why not?

- What did you think of the writer’s use of:
Language?
Description?
Dialogue?
Pacing?
Style?
Characterization?
The first ten pages?
The ending and resolution?
The opening shot?
The final shot?
The premise?

- How did the writer set up/ describe the characters?

- How did the writer set up the situation?

- Was the writer able to get you to visualize the movie in your own mind?

- Where did the writer set up for tension or drama later on? How did they do it?

- How did the writer get the character across on script? Did you see how the writer was able to project a character that attracted the attention of an A-List star? (I think this would be a very valuable as this is one of the major selling points of a good script.)

- Was the script one that drew you in?

- If you were a producer/reader, would you have bought this script? Why or why not? Why do you think it was made?

- Where and how did the script follow popular screenplay structure? Or did it? (Hauge, Field etc.)

- What were the main plot points? (according to Fields) The action/sequence that sets the stage for Act II and the action/sequence that throws us into Act III?
(For more information get Syd Field's Screenplay)

- What were the beats? (according to Blake Snyder)
For those who don’t know, these basically are:

1. Opening Sequence

2. Theme Stated - somewhere in the beginning you state what the movie is about

3. Set-up – where we show life before hand (combined with catalyst the problem/situation should be explained within the 1st 10 pages)

4. Catalyst – the hammer drops, life is changed, problem arises

5. Debate – what to do, what to do?!

6. Break into ACT II – some decision made, old life is left behind and journey begins

7. B Story - subplots

8. Fun and Games – in Snyder’s words: all the good stuff you see in the trailers or “the promise of the premise”

9. Midpoint – usually an up or down point (false victory or false defeat) halfway thru story.

10. Bad Guys Close In – conflict intensifies, pressure increases, etc.

11. All Is Lost – setbacks suffered, the victory of midpoint shown to be false, etc.

12. Dark Night of the Soul – character/situation at lowest point, must find strength within self or whatever

13. Break into ACT III – sequence that brings us into final act

14. Finale – big climax

15. Final Shot – resolution and end shot

(For more information get Blake Snyder's Save The Cat)

- What were the beats according to Hauge?
For a good diagram see here: http://www.screenplaymastery.com/structure.htm

(For more info get Michael Hauge's Writing Screenplays That Sell)

Stage 1: The Set-Up

Turning Point 1: The Opportunity

Stage 2: New Situation

Turning Point 2: Change of Plans

Stage 3: Progress

Turning Point 3: Point of No Return

Stage 4: Complications and Higher Stakes

Turning Point 4: Major Setback

Stage 5: Final Push

Turning Point 5: Climax

Stage 6: Aftermath

These are just some questions I'll be asking myself and possible points of discussion.

As well as any gossip-mongering anyone might know about how the writer slept with the right person etc to get the script made.

I just read the script but haven't seen the movie in a while and want to wait until I do see it before I make any specific comments.

I'm pretty sure though, from what I remember, that there are some differences between the script version and the film version.

One quick comment about format. We are told to keep the action and description paragraphs to four lines. Check out the fourth scene, the waiting room, which begins with eight lines of office description combined with Clementine entering.

Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that rules such as this are geared more towards first time spec script writers who have an extremely hard time getting past readers. Anything that makes the reading easier is a plus for them in such circumstances.

Kaufman was already a known writer in Hollywood with a list of credits already to his name, so, naturally, he wouldn't have to worry as much about format rules.

But yeah, I agree with you, jonpiper, and would probably have broken it up myself.

I think it's just a matter of style.

Personally, I find nothing wrong with it -- but I also think that a screenplay with the first two pages dense with words like that might signal a no-read for a no name first-time writer trying to get their script read.

Hollywood readers and agents are actually looking for a reason to put a script down when perusing new scripts.

OK, here goes nothing....

First let me say that at first I was kinda “eh” about analyzing this movie. I’m not much into romantic comedies or romantic drama etc. But I’m very glad I did.

I’ve been analyizing movies in the genre I’m writing but this exercise showed me that it really is true when they say you should examine works outside your genre.

It can really help broaden your understanding of story structure and the ways writers (and directors) use to manipulate an audience’s (audience = readers, viewers, listeners, whoevers) reactions and emotions. And let’s face it – that’s what movies, books and stories really are all about. Evoking a reaction from an audience.

The writer has to learn how to tug those strings, pull a person along, satisfy them, arouse them, inspire them, make them feel.

A good writer must, in essence, be savyy about human behavior. That’s why a story’s structure is so important and why they say certain structures are more effective than others – they maximize the impact of a story.

Anyways I’m rambling -- that’s all for another thread someday. As I was saying..

I’m glad I did this movie and have a bunch of stuff I’d like to discuss, but I’m gonna post only a few thoughts at a time so as to give others a chance to give some input.

REMEMBER: These are only my opinions and thoughts -- and you’re happily invited to disagree, discuss and/or post your thoughts on anything I say as well as about the movie.

First,

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SCREENPLAY AND THE FILM:

Ok, so I’ve now seen the film (again) and I noticed there are definite differences between the screenplay version and the film version.

In my opinion the film version was much better.

I believe the film opening was much more effective than the script opening.

The script opening used a bookend type structure: the old lady with the manuscript, fifty years ahead of the story, in the beginning and the end. I think this actually diluted the story as well as changed the focus and theme of the story.

The film OPENING was better because

1 – It introduced us right away to the main character: Joel.

They say this is always a good thing and I agree. The director obviously thought so also.

I think, especially with a movie this potentially confusing for an audience, that it was a good decision to fix the audience upon the main character right away. Otherwise, there would’ve been the risk of people getting confused when they see the old lady and focusing upon her. Plus this changed the whole story from one about MARY to one about JOEL and CLEMENTINE.

2 – It gave us a feel for what was to come with showing him kinda sad, mopey, listless, disaffected etc. – obviously something’s got him down. It did a better job of orienting the story and setting it up from page/scene 1 than the script.

3 - It caused us to ask questions right away – always a good thing with a story.

As the scenes unfold, the audience wants to know: Why does he feel this way? What’s going on? Whats gonna happen? Why are they acting like that, doing those things?

4 – It began setting up the situation right away. Joel’s obviously unhappy. He’s obviously yearning for something.

5 - It paints him (the main character) in a sympathetic light – who hasn’t stood with the masses: isolated, thinking your own melancholy thoughts, waiting to go someplace you didn’t want to go: work, school, home whatever.

It creates sympathy but even more important – it creates empathy. The audience can relate to this guy, place themselves in his shoes. Who hasn’t wanted to just say fuck it and drop it all for a day?

These are all things a writer must do – immediately, right away:

Latch the audience onto a character so they’ll follow them, get the audience to relate. If the audience empathizes with a character, not only will they follow him further into the story, they’ll be more affected when the writer begins to throw bombs at him, when his world crumbles, when he has conflict, and they’ll also be more apt to forgive any minor lapses your story may have along the way.

Place him in an intriguing situation. Upon seeing the film the first time, Who wasn’t wondering what the hell was going on? Why and how were these two people interacting so strangely? What’s happening to this guy we’ve become attached to?

Notice he’s shy, intelligent, nice, good-mannered. (How many times was the word nice used in this story? ) These are all things the writer has used to make us like the character and root for him (as well being traits necessary to fulfill the story’s dramatic or structural needs!)

Also it’s very important to notice these things because in the end – he changes! Yes! The infamous character arc! It’s true! It really works! Who wasn’t touched when in the end, he races out of his apartment and stops her? Insists she not leave?

What happened to the shy reserved guy from just a few moments ago? The guy who just a day earlier couldn’t even LOOK at her, much less SPEAK to her on the train?! The guy who was shy and introverted and pulled himself further into himself and retreated away into his journal rather than interact? The guy who ran away!

That is part of the satisfaction of this movie – the evolution of a character at the end. There are also many other such things in the movie but I’ll bring those up later.

OK, I kinda broke into the opening and character also but I’ll say more on those later. I’d like to hear from others. Particularly whether they preferred the script or the film version.

Back to the differences between the two versions and why I thought the film version was better.

Another reason I liked the film version better is that it was more upbeat, more hopeful.

Every movie/story is a statement. I found the script statement very depressing and downbeat. After I finished reading it, I felt deflated. I felt bad for the human condition.

In the original screenplay, Kaufman shows 50 years later and shows both MARY and CLEMENTINE both still locked in their own little pathetic cycles. How sad that Clem has erased Joel 15 times. In the end it paints her as pathetic (to me) and by extension, it paints the human race as pathetic – forever doomed to repeat their foolish mistakes. No chance of redemption.

In the screen version, the movie ends with Joel stopping Clementine. They both come to realize their own faults and limitations and know it might not work out – but they agree, regardless, to pursue it anyway and try. They’ve accepted their own imperfections, and more important, each others and still choose to be with each other. Love is too powerful and has the potential to alter human beings.

What an uplifiting end. There is hope for the human race after all. We don't know if they'll make it - but we can hope. That's much better than saying:

"Yeah they stay fucked up for the next fifty years..."

I also had a hard time figuring out the beats and acts with the screenplay but I noticed the director re-arranged the structure slightly (for the better I think) and I was then able to see the beats, scenes etc. very clearly and was amazed! More on that later.

I think seeing the two different versions was very illuminating and showed me a glimpse into why studios, production companies and directors sometimes choose to go the way they go with a screenplay.


OK, enough of my rambles about the differnces between the screenplay and the film.

I’d like to hear other people’s opinions on the differences between the two - or on anything about the screenplay....

Also: DID YOU LIKE THE FILM?
DID YOU LIKE THE SCREENPLAY?

Wow.

Hahahahahahahaha! Joe and Dpat were definitely right to not make this a subforum. I’m glad there’s been so much participation.

OK, here I go:

Did you like the movie? Why or why not?

Yes, I did but I enjoyed it better the second time around. I think this is one of those movies you have to see more than once to fully appreciate. I was able to appreciate the layers, the foreshadowing and the structure better when I saw it more than once.


Did you enjoy the screenplay? Why or why not?

Yes, but as stated earlier, I didn’t like the screenplay as much. I felt the film version was much better.

I also think that what I really liked about the screenplay version were the characters and not so much the story (which shows you the power of good characters!) In the film version, I liked the story and the characters.

After reading the screenplay, I felt kinda bummed. It was a downer to me. The film version had the opposite effect.


OK, before I go into the various questions I’ve posted dealing with character etc. I’m gonna break down the movie into the beats etc. as I see them.

I’m gonna use Blake Snyder’s version since it’s the flavor du jour right now among screenwriters, but I can do Hauge’s and Fields’ as well. This movie fits into those also.

In my opinion there really isn’t much difference between the different versions. These beat structures apply to just about every successful movie you’ll see.

Opening Shot/Final Image

I put these two together because according to Snyder and expert screenwriters, these two images should complement each other and reflect the change which has occurred within your story. They should be opposites.

The opening shot is the first impression the audience has and should set the tone etc. for the movie.

The final image should leave the audience with the impression that actual change has occurred. A story has indeed been told.

This is one of the key areas where I think the film did a better job than the screenplay.

The screenplay’s opening shot shows the old lady (MARY) walking into a publisher. This is one of the reason’s why I like the film version better; this opening implies the movie is about Mary.

Also, while Kaufman did set up a bookend (complementary opening and ending) with the old lady, he shows the old lady dead in the second to last scene. The final image is of Clementine being erased, Joel’s voice coming over her answering machine wanting to talk.

Opening shot: Old Mary walking into book publisher
Final shot: Old Clementine being erased.

Now the film version, I feel, was much better and more true to the form.

Opening shot: Joel lying in his bed, alone and sad.
Final shot: Joel and Clementine running outside on the beach, together and happy.

Exact opposites! Sad/happy. Alone/together. Inside/outside. Lying down/running. Amazing isn’t it?

And I liked this version waaaaaay before I even knew what a beat was or had read Snyder’s book! It’s little things like this a writer must keep in mind when constructing their screenplay.

Audiences subconsciously react to this stuff without even realizing it.

Theme Stated - somewhere in the beginning you state what the movie is about

Hmmm now it’s been said that a solid screenplay will have the theme stated somewhere in the beginning. I looked through the script real quick and missed it at first but it is there. Kaufman has it on p. 25:

Joel has a V.O. and says:

“Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.”

And in the screenplay version that is exactly the theme! The final sequence shows Clementine as an old lady, erasing Joel for the fifteenth time, unaware of all her previous erasures.

The film version has a different theme though. I think the theme is stated in a more subtle way after they’ve re-met at Montauk, when the credits come on and Joel is crying; there is a haunting song playing:

“Everybody’s gotta learn sometime…. Change your heart…”

A more uplifting theme and it states what the movie aims to show. Love is compromise. If you want it to work, you’ve gotta be willing to learn, be willing to change…


The Set-Up – where we show life before hand

This is usually the first ten, twenty minutes or so of the film/script. This is the beginning of the story, where the writer shows life beforehand and where the writer introduces the audience to the characters, their quirks, tics, behavior patterns etc.

It is also where Snyder says the writer must SHOW what the protag is lacking. He calls it “The Six Things That Need Fixing.”

These are then hit upon throughout your story and can serve as markers for the audience to see the character grow.

The structure of this screenplay was curious and the film does not follow a standard timeline, but I think the director’s re-structuring of it actually made the movie easier to understand and a more enjoyable experience -- and he re-did it to follow the prescribed beats!

In the set-up we see the interaction between the two, learn about their characters and are intrigued by their actions. There is also A LOT of foreshadowing.

After the opening credits (which came on fifteen minutes into the movie!) the audience learns that Joel and Clementine are actually lovers and have split up.

That is the set-up, the initial situation.

The Catalyst – This is the life-changing event that throws the protag into the actual story. This is where a change has occurred that is going to eventually change the protag. Some may call it the Call (if using a Campbell-type mythic structure.)

Joel learns Clementine has had him erased from her memory. His world has changed. She no longer remembers him and to make matters worse – she has a new boyfriend! Holy cow! Talk about changing the world of the protagonist!

Debate – what to do, what to do?!

Joel discusses it with his fiends, the audience sees him suffering etc. He rushes to the doctor’s office to see if it is real.

Break into ACT II – some decision made, old life is left behind and journey begins

Joel decides to get his memory erased also and we jump into Act II around 30 minutes into the movie. The story actually begins: what will happen to these two lovers now? what's going on? What's going to happen?


OK, I’m only giving my breakdown of the beats comprising ACT I for now so as to not make it any longer than it already is and to give others an opportunity to post.

Like I said, these are just my thoughts and I'm using this exercise as a tool to better my craft.

Anybody have anything to add? Comment upon? Refute? Note? Anybody see things different? The same?

Anything?

Ray?

Anyone?

Maestrowork: May I offer a suggestion? I think there's too much to discuss and analyze in one setting and it's hard to catch up on conversation. Should we break it up to more palatable pieces? For example, why not discuss the three acts separately, or focus on theme/characters/plot in different sessions? Or pick out a section of the script and dissect what Kaufman was trying to do -- does it work? Does it not work? Does it make it to the film, and if not, why not -- you think?

Click to expand...

Ray, I agree. I figured I’d start with a listing of the beats and acts so they could be referred to as we proceeded the discussion. I figured we’d all take a look at the framework upon which everything was hung – characters, dialogue, plot, etc. first, and then proceed.

I’ll finish the beats, structure here right now so we can move on to other stuff like characters, etc.

Jonpiper: However, I think the movie would have worked better if it stuck more to the screenplay.The screenplay opened with the premise of the story -- erasing memories -- and I thought the screemplay clarified the situation right off the bat. The opening scene of the screenplay for me was a better hook than the film's opening. Then we cut back to the present and find out that Clementine, the other main character, had her memory erased.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I have to disagree here, jon. (Remember, of course, that this is only my opinion. ) I really think Kaufman’s structure here was a mistake that was later corrected when Kaufman collaborated with the director.

The screenplay opens with an unnamed old woman trying to get a manuscript printed. I didn’t find that intriguing at all as a hook. Nor does it have anything to do really with the story at hand.

Also the next scene shows Clementine having her memory erased. To me this implies that the old woman in the beginning was Clementine since she’s the active character in the next scene and throughout the movie.

After you finish reading the screenplay and when you consider the bookend structure used, the story, as Kaufman has written it, is actually about Mary!

This is the “standard” way of using a bookend structure. Usually the central character opens and closes the story.

Consider some other well-known movies that used a bookend structure: Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, Forrest Gump.

In Titanic the old lady turns out to be Rose and the old man turns out to be Private Ryan. And of course, Gump is Gump. In those movies, the bookend character was a central character. Not so in this case. Mary was a secondary character.

This is why I think using her to open the movie like that was a mistake and why I think they changed it. Too much potential for confusion by the audience. Everyone would’ve thought that Clementine was the old lady and wondered where the book fit in, during the movie.

Like they say, and I believe this is especially so with movies, if you introduce a knife in chapter one, it better be used before the end of the book.

OK I’m gonna finish my assessment of what I believe to be the main beats of the story.

We are now into ACT II. We broke into ACT II when Joel decided to have his memory erased.

B Story - subplots

These were the stories of Patrick and Clementine, Mary and Dr. Mierzwiak. All done while Joel is asleep.

Fun and Games – in Snyder’s words: all the good stuff you see in the trailers or “the promise of the premise”

Once again – exactly as advertised. All the cool and weird dream special effects. All the weirdness. All the fun stuff (sex, drinking, shenanigans etc.). All the stuff shown in the trailers.

The place where the premise – memories being erased - is shown. (The promise of the premise)

All in the second act while Joel is sleeping.

Midpoint – midpoint of story. Often an up or down point (false victory or false defeat.)

This is where Joel realizes he’s made a mistake. He wants to call it off. He realizes that there are some good memories too. He realizes he doesn’t want to forget everything that happened. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Memory Clementine tries to help Joel.

Bad Guys Close In – conflict intensifies, pressure increases, etc.

Stan realizes Joel’s memories have wandered and proceeds to relentlessly try to track them down and erase them. Joel runs frantically around trying to escape and preserve some memory of Clementine.

Notice how the drama escalates as they try to hide.

Also in the B story there is escalating drama as we see that all Pat’s attempts to affect Clem with Joel’s stolen items are causing reactions she doesn’t understand. They backfire repeatedly as she begins to realize something’s wrong. She becomes increasingly upset.

Drama escalates also with the other B story of Mary and the doctor and Stan.

There is also a false high point here where Joel and Clementine think they got away.

All Is Lost – setbacks suffered, the victory of midpoint shown to be false, etc.

Dr. Mierzwiak is called in and – alas – he finds the hidden Joel and Clementine and zaps the final memories.

Joel has lost all his memories of Clementine in spite of his best efforts.

Clementine’s last words to Joel: “Meet me in Montauk…”


Dark Night of the Soul – character/situation at lowest point, must find strength within self or whatever

Joel wakes up empty. Mary finds out she had an affair with Dr. Mierzwiak and an abortion and had her memories erased. Everyone's pretty bummed out.

And with that we Break into ACT III – sequence that brings us into final act

Finale – big climax

All the loose ends are tied up. Resolution.

Mary quits her job resolves to let everyone know they’ve had their memories erased.

Joel and Clementine, after having spent a great first night together now hear these tapes of each other complaining about each other, pointing out each other’s flaws, etc.

Now the moment comes: What will they do?

They decide that they will proceed and take a chance. They are a little wiser and worse for the wear but are also hopeful of the future. As are we.


OK, that’s my wrap-up of the essentail beats of the story.

To be honest, I was amazed at how closely the story followed Snyder’s (and other’s) explanation of how a good screenplay is structured. I think that right there is a valuable lesson itself.

I’ll let Ray pick out the next topic of discussion. Or anyone else for that matter….

Jon, I agree that this screenplay was a difficult and confusing one. To be honest, when Ray (maestrowork) recommended it, I kinda cringed at first.

It would not have been my choice for the best screenplay to begin a study with but that’s how the votes swung in the polls. I wonder where all those people are who voted for it?

Anyways, then I read the screenplay and found it a bit hard to find the beats etc. and knew it was gonna be a challenge to figure out the structure.

It was only when I saw the movie again (after seeing it originally a few months ago) that I was able to discern the beats of the story and I believe a large part of that was due to the influence of the director.


Also – just to let you know – the old woman in the beginning is Mary, not Clementine. Clementine’s first appearance is when she is getting her memory erased.

This isn’t revealed until the end when it shows the same Old Woman getting off the future “tube” after leaving the publisher’s office and going to work for Dr. Mierzwiak (fifty years later!)

He then greets her as Mary.

Afterwards, old Clementine comes in to have her memory erased for the sixteenth time.

Then Old Mary leaves with the manuscript of all the memories that have been erased and dies on the train. How depressing.

That’s why I liked the movie version better.


And I also want to thank you guys: jonpiper, aspiringwriter and maestrowork for piping up and contributing to the discussion.


One of the big things people spoke about concerning this film/screenplay was the characters.

Anybody have anything they'd like to say concerning the characters? The characterization?