cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Oct 5, 2012 21:20:36 GMT -5
I was wondering as James Grant was writing the final draft for John Wayne's move, "The Alamo," if John Wayne said/wrote any part of it himself or had some contributions to the script? Along with that question, were there any changes to the script, even in a small way, as it was being filmed on the set as some movies sometimes do?
|
|
|
Post by Phil Riordan on Oct 6, 2012 18:51:39 GMT -5
I think Wayne's fingerprints are all over it. Listen to the dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 12:16:52 GMT -5
Yes, but not in the sense of screenwriting. Wayne's fingerprints (footprints, perhaps) are on the finished movie as the director, and as the actor saying lines the way he wanted to. This is why writers were often kept on during the filming of movies, so they could rewrite on demand. Did Wayne write any of it? No. He told Grant, "Gimme something different here by tomorrow." Then Grant scrambled to create -- on cue -- what Wayne wanted even when Wayne himself didn't know. Duke was faaaaaaar too busy producing, directing and starring in the biggest movie ever made domestically. He wasn't about to write too. These are all specific jobs. Hollywood has always been very departmentalized.
That said, when a filmmaker is the writer-director, as with John Lee Hancock on The Alamo (2004), then that fine line is removed, often resulting in a better unified work of art.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 12:27:19 GMT -5
I think Wayne's fingerprints are all over it. Listen to the dialogue. As for Duke's dialogue, he kept Jimmie Grant around because Grant wrote those wonderfully appropriate lines for Wayne. This is what irks me sometimes when I see a book or website posting "Quotes by John Wayne." These, for the most part, are lines from Wayne's films -- the quotes of whichever screenwriter created that particular script. Often, these lines coincided with Duke's beliefs, but he would have been the first person to tell you that HE didn't say that. His writer did. "My dad wasn't Davy Crockett. He wasn't a sheriff. He wasn't a cowboy. He was an actor." -- Michael Wayne
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 12:33:48 GMT -5
Often -- nay, usually -- Wayne would reword things on the set to make a line flow better in the John Wayne style, and he was always right. Who better to make that choice. The process in production for handling this is not the writer but the script supervisor. This focused and very important crew member must annotate the director's script and indicate all dialogue changes so the editor is later aware of the variances that will often take place from one take to another and could get very confusing in the editing room. Again, this is a technical follow-up by the script supervisor, not a rewrite by the writer.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 12:52:45 GMT -5
Along with that question, were there any changes to the script, even in a small way, as it was being filmed on the set as some movies sometimes do? Now we are indeed talking about Grant, or any screenwriter on a movie set. Daily revisions to a screenplay are normal operating procedure. These are hopefully minor, or over-budget issues begin to creep in. As production is about to start, the "FINAL DRAFT" of the screenplay is presented to the company. From then on, every change beyond a minor dialogue or action change can cost big money by changing the daily production requirements of the whole crew and talent. That said, daily revisions do appear in the form of "Blue Pages." The script formatting at this point (it is called a "locked-in script") keeps all changes from altering page or scene numbers. There are always problems or ideas that come up after production begins that require script changes. If you look at the shooting script of any completed movie, you will see page colors of blue, yellow, pink, green, tan, etc. When an original FINAL DRAFT white page is revised, it is printed on blue paper for all. Blue pages revised become yellow, etc. All these changes are generated -- or at least approved -- by the director and the producer (with creative and business concerns respectively).
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 12:54:17 GMT -5
And to reverse my process of turning a simple question into a pageant, I'll anser the question. ;D
There were many changes during production.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 7, 2012 13:47:39 GMT -5
I daresay this is a constant in filmmaking. Actors often are faced with new dialog or line changes when they show up for work on any given day. One of the most oft-cited examples is "Casablanca"; they didn't know how the film would end until well into the shoot. Ingrid Bergman explained how tough that is on actors because, for example, she was never quite sure how to do her scenes with Bogart and Henreid since she could never be sure where her heart was supposed to lie.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 14:38:17 GMT -5
I'll bet the director Curtiz to some degree planned it that way. It is often a technique to keep the actor(s) somewhat in the dark so they don't overact the subtext. Hard to imagine, with actors of the calibre of Bergman, Greenstreet, Bogart, et. al., but it can still be a subtle problem.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 7, 2012 14:44:06 GMT -5
Allen, you are flashing me back to Penn State years. Julius Epstein (co-writer of Casablanca with his brother) was an alumnus of ours and would return annually for Homecoming Weekend. We would have long wonderful round tables with him in the film department, and he told us the story of how he and his brother finally came up with the ending of the movie in the car on the way to the studio the morning they were to film it!!! Can't remember now which of them came up with it, but the line just popped out of his mouth and they immediately agreed on, "Round up the usual suspects." And now it is Cinema history.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 7, 2012 16:38:56 GMT -5
Rich - now that you relate that (boy, do I envy you those roundtables!), I do recall Julius telling this story on one of the "Casablanca" documentary specials; it may be one that comes with the DVD edition of the film. He did say they hadn't decided who Ilsa would go off with until that day and the key was "Round up the usual suspects," and they had their ending.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Oct 7, 2012 18:20:12 GMT -5
Very interesting and enlightening stuff, Rich. This is way above and beyond my one year of summer theater in Maine. Thanks for going into detail ....
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Oct 7, 2012 18:47:58 GMT -5
I actually did some acting for several years and, for a time, mostly at a small "new playwrights" theater. All of the scripts we did were brand new and had never been done before, and the playwright was there through the entire rehearsal and performance cycle. So we kept reinventing most of these plays, changing lines, cutting whole scenes, getting new scenes, new lines, etc. right up until the play opened, which could be a bit nerve wracking, but I think it gave me a good idea of what real professional acting is like.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Riordan on Oct 8, 2012 12:54:02 GMT -5
cje, In answer to your first question, it appears that John Wayne greatly influenced the final script of "The Alamo," even if he did not take pen in hand.
Contemporary printed sources indicate that Wayne's "Alamo" was never intended to be any kind of docudrama. Rather it was a tribute by Wayne to American (North, Central, South) patriotism. "The Alamo" was a very personal project of Wayne's. It was years in development.
James Edward Grant had been a speechwriter and screenwriter before meeting Wayne. His early works include "Boom Town" with Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy, and "The Great John L" with Errol Flynn. When Wayne became interested in producing films, he collaborated with Grant, who had earned a reputation as being a reliable writer. "Angel and the Badman" was their first project.
During this time, they began work on "The Alamo" (the original script eventually being confiscated by Republic Studios and reworked for "The Last Command"). Wayne and Grant continued work on "The Alamo," eventually filming it in 1959. It was, again, a very important and personal project of Wayne's. As Rich said in his post, "Did Wayne write any of it? No." However, you asked if Wayne influenced the script and I think he did to a very great degree. To the degree that much of the dialogue sounds like Wayne talking. In a documentary that's included with a VHS release of "The Alamo" Ken Curtis, a principal actor, remarks that Wayne had everyone saying words and performing actions that were characteristic of Wayne's familiar onscreen persona. Curtis used Patrick Wayne's actions as an example. Curtis's own dialogue includes the expression, "Knock on it!" when hurrying his men. That's an expression used by Wayne in the "Horse Soldiers." I'd never heard it before or since. At some point Linda Crystal asks, "What's going to happen to us, Davy - you and me?" That phraseology sounds very much as Wayne would ask it.
"The Alamo" was Wayne's baby. Based on what I've read, his influence on the script was great. Rich certainly much about the film making process, based on his many years of experience. However, "The Alamo" project was so close to Wayne's heart that I have to believe that rewrites were at his direction. I also have to wonder if the script's flaws weren't a result of Wayne's involement, and that James Edward Grant has been taking the blame all these years.
Grant also wrote the script for "McLintock!" as excellent film with wonderful dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 8, 2012 15:23:59 GMT -5
We are not at odds, Phil. Wayne directed and produced the film. This, of course, means that he paid Grant's salary and dictated what he wanted that script to be. It was Wayne's project from the word go and against all odds. My point is that it was a situation where each man knew his job. Wayne's was to be the creative head of all departments, writing included. Grant's was to write. Wayne and Grant had been collaborating on the story and screenplay, as you say, since Republic days (Hmmm. I like the sound of that word.). Grant was writing Wayne's opus because Wayne wasn't a screenwriter. That isn't to say that Wayne didn't say "Here's what I want" and Grant wrote it that way. They went through something like 13 complete rewrites before they got there. What I am saying is that these guys are collaborators in the best sense of the word. They trust one another's talents. The parallel would be the relationship between the director (Wayne) and the art director (Alfred Ybarra). The fallen cross on the Alamo Chapel was originally a small upright cross stuck in the little round hump in the middle of the top. Ybarra had been working on the set, making creative decisions in his field, and Duke came in to see his accomplishments. He didn't like Ybarra's cross. Ybarra asked him what he wanted to see up there. Wayne's answer (according to Ybarra) was, "Gimme something allegorical." He didn't say "I want a large cross that is tipped over to one side and leaning on the wall." He just nudged the expert and let him bring his own expertise to the front and try something out one Wayne, who would know success when he saw it. And he loved it. Same with writing. Yes, many similarities to other Wayne films. Partly because Grant knew how to write John Wayne dialogue. Thus, there was little for Duke to change. Many changes, on the other hand, took place due to production and scheduling needs. Since the ultimate yea or nay regarding business and scheduling also came from Wayne as producer, he would also require last minute changes in the script to keep the cost down. Your selecting the phrase, "Knock on it!" is great. I was always chagrined at how often Duke or the Dukies would say that. It recurs in Howard Hawks' HATARI! too. Wayne as star (not director) was known to force script changes on the director (whose ultimate choice it always is). The largest of these changes was the ending of THE SHOOTIST. The original scripted ending was that, in spite of wanting to get killed in the ultimate 3-way gunfight, Books was so good that he won. Then young Gillam (Ron Howard's character) comes in an shoots him in the back and walks out with the reputation for having killed John Bernard Books. Duke did the unpardonable, using his clout as a star, and said, "We're not gonna end the film that way." The director allowed it, and Duke was absolutely right, IMO.
|
|