analysis

Nightcrawler dialogue analysis [Academic Musings]

LOU

Could I please speak with your boss, please?

OWNER

I’m the owner.

LOU

How about 800 in store credit?

OWNER

What are you looking for?

LOU

A camcorder and a police scanner.

This is one of my favorite exchanges in the film. Now, at first glance, it’s kinda a boring exchange. BUT, this is the pivotal point in Lou’s journey. He’s experienced Nightcrawling from the outside, and now he’s going active. He’s going off on his own. Before this, we know that Lou is interested in Nightcrawling, but he was begging for a job. Now he’s taking things into his own hands. He’s starting his own business. Just because he wants to. He takes a bit of a daring approach, steals a bike in broad daylight. It points toward the amount that Lou wants to Nightcrawl.

I also appreciate that the language is so direct. There’s no questioning Lou’s intentions. He wants a camcorder and a police scanner. The direct nature of the language allows the audience no room for interpretation. We know what Lou is going to do next. It also stands in juxtaposition to a lot of Lou’s dialogue. He tends to speak through his thoughts a lot of the time. He asks a lot of questions. He often appeals to authority of facts that he’s learned. But he doesn’t do that here. I think that’s important.

LOU

Something like this?

NINA

That’s right.

LOU

Bloody.

NINA

That’s only part of it. We like crime.

Not all crime. A carjacking in Compton,

for example, that isn’t news, now is it?

We find our viewers are more interested

in urban crime creeping into the suburbs.

What that means is a victim or victims,

preferably well-off and/or white, injured

at the hands of the poor, or a minority.

LOU

Just crime?

NINA

No. Accidents play. Cars, buses,

trains, planes. Fires. Suicides.

LOU

But bloody.

NINA

Graphic. The best and clearest way that

I can phrase it to you, Lou, to capture

the spirit of what we air, is think of

our newscast as a screaming woman running

down the street with her throat cut.

LOU

I understand. I’ve always been a very

fast learner. You’ll be seeing me again.

This moment. OOF. In my opinion, this moment acts, for Lou, as the permission he needs to really let loose with all his worst instincts. “We like crime. Not all crime…” You know, not the boring crime that happens to the poor and the disenfranchised. They don’t like the type of crime that Lou is currently doing. Missing manhole covers are boring. BUT, crime that happens to the upper crust, that’s shocking. Especially the graphic stuff. This points Lou on a much more direct path. He starts ignoring the police calls to “bad” neighborhoods in preference to the “good” neighborhoods. He starts chasing suicides in hopes of seeing something bloody and gruesome. Maybe even catch someone jumping.

This dialogue serves to further aim the bullet that is Lou. It also directly states the theme of the film, the excess that is the “if it bleeds, it leads” shock-news culture that we all live in. That’s what Nina and her network seek. They literally exploit tragedy. They make it into news. They cultivate fear for views. That’s why they want to see “urban crime creeping into the suburbs.” Because that’s terrifying for the suburban white folk who want to live in peace and comfort.

LOU

Thank you, because I don’t think it’s a

secret that I’ve single-handedly raised

the unit price on your ratings book.

NINA

Our ratings book price?

LOU

I’m a very fast learner, Nina. We had a

conversation and I specifically mentioned

that. Do you remember? Well do you?

NINA

Yes.

LOU

I recently learned, for instance, that

most Americans watch local news to stay

informed. I also learned that an average

half-hour of Los Angeles television news

packs all its local government coverage --

including budget, law enforcement,

education, transportation and immigration

-- into 22 seconds. Local crime stories,

however, not only usually led the news

but filled 14 times the broadcast,

averaging 5 minutes 7 seconds. And

K.S.M.L. relies heavily on such stories.

With Los Angeles crime rates going down I

think that makes items like mine

particularly valuable, like rare animals.

I imagine your needs will only increase

during next week’s rating sweeps period.

NINA

We certainly appreciate what you do.

LOU

There's certain good things in being alone.

You have time to do the things you want

to do, like study and plan. But you can’t

have dinners like this. Or be physical

with a person, I mean beyond a flirtationship. 

NINA

Where are you going with this?

LOU

I want that. With you. Like you want to

keep your job and your health insurance.

YUCK. Okay, so I highlighted two lines of dialogue here, because this moment really served for me as the moment where Lou went from a shitty person to being a shitty, skeevy person. Lou is the type of person who is always listening and keeping receipts. He specifically remembered and catalogued the fact that he was helping Nina raise the unit price of their ratings book. He catalogued that and later used it to help him manipulate Nina into having a sexual relationship with him. Does she want to keep her job and health insurance? Well, looks like she’s got to keep Lou happy, then. And in order to keep him happy, now he’s saying she needs to have sex with him.

There’s a psychological difference between types of criminal behavior. For me, this is the moment where we understand that Lou is a true psychopath or sociopath. Lou doesn’t have the capacity to be in a real relationship or to charm someone. He doesn’t even try. We see him earlier in the film utterly fail to charm someone. So now, he jumps straight to manipulation. He knows he’s in a position of power, and he waits  until now to approach Nina for a sexaul relationship because now he’s pretty sure he can pressure her into it.

These lines also serve to increase the tension in the scene. What starts as a simple date that is a bit awkward, progresses into a planned manipulation in which we are waiting for Nina to respond. How is she going to react to Lou’s inflammatory statements? What is she going to do? Lou has crossed a boundary with what he says here.

This is the point in the film where I actively start rooting for Lou to die.

Literary Tool Kit: Romantic Comedy

This is the first of a series of blogs wherein I work to create a “literary toolkit” on writing the Romantic Comedy screenplay. This is adapted from an assignment I worked on for my graduate degree at SNHU.

I selected two romantic comedy screenplays, analyzed and compared them, and from this, I have created this "writer's toolkit." I selected a 1959 film by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, "Some Like It Hot," and 2008’s “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By picking a classic, Hay's Code Hollywood film and a contemporary romantic comedy, I have identified the differences between the two scripts, as well as the storytelling elements, literary conventions, and themes of this particular genre which have persisted through the evolving film landscape.

My reasons for picking these two films are multifaceted. First, these two scripts were available. Through the process of searching for screenplays, one will make this realization quickly. Transcripts for almost all films are readily available, but if you want the originals, these are much more difficult to find. Especially because scripts are never “finished.” Once a screenplay is optioned for a film, it is alive again and edited into different versions. If you are able to find the original script, it is almost always going to show some differences from the film version. The two scripts I’ve found appear to be originals, not shooting versions, which is why I’ve settled on them. 

Of course, I also enjoy both of these films. Amongst a list of screenplays I searched for, I’m very happy that these two were available. The differences in the two films are indicative of how time has changed the genre. This is something by which I am fascinated, as I adore romantic comedies. When life is crapping on you, when you need a boost, when you need your faith returned in humanity, “rom-coms” are there. In terms of bringing people joy, there are few genres where you’re guaranteed to be able to do this than in rom-com. Sometimes I want to write and consume things that are deep and important and study difficult situations. Other times I want to write and consume comfort. Rom-com is the mac and cheese of film.

The literary conventions of this genre are easy to identify. Misconceptions and miscommunications are frequently central to the conflicts of these films. Opposites always attract and make for great comedy and chemistry. And people never know what they want. The woman might have a list of things they’re looking for; the man may write of a “certain type” of woman. But through the magical process of falling in love, the characters always discover what they really want. These conventions haven’t changed in too many major ways since the conception of the genre; however, there are certainly culturally-related conventions that have changed since the 1950’s. Working women are much less frequently represented as quirky shrews who need love to soften them, as can be seen in quite a few of Doris Day’s films, most notably 1961’s Lover Come Back (one notable exception to this would be the films of Sandra Bullock -- Miss Congeniality, The Proposal, etc). Now, women in rom-coms almost always have jobs, and some are even career-driven. Plus, it’s no longer implied that marriage leads to the ending of a career and the beginning of a domestic life.

The cultural differences between the 1950’s and today might be pretty drastic, but the process of falling in love hasn’t changed all that much. It’s a major part of the human condition, and always fun to watch, whether the pair is meeting as members of competing advertising firms, or through an online dating app. Through my research and analysis of my two chosen texts, I plan to read some journal articles about the topic, thoroughly read the scripts for these films, watch the films themselves, and perhaps even check out some other entries into the genre that are generally regarded as trope-breaking.

I adore romantic comedies. When life is crapping on you, when you need a boost, when you need your faith returned in humanity, “rom-coms” are there. In terms of bringing people joy, there are few genres where you’re guaranteed to be able to do this than in rom-com. Sometimes I want to write and consume things that are deep and important and study difficult situations. Other times I want to write and consume comfort. Rom-com is the mac and cheese of film.

Works Cited

  • “Some Like it Hot.” By Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond, directed by Billy Wilder, Mirisch Company, 29 March 1959.

  • “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” By Jason Segel, directed by Nicholas Stoller, Apatow Productions, 18 April 2008.

  • “Lover Come Back.” By Staley Shapiro and Paul Henning, directed by Delbert Mann, Universal Pictures, 20 December 1961.

  • “Miss Congeniality.” By Marc Lawrence, Katie Ford, and Caryn Lucas, directed by Donald Petrie, Castle Rock Entertainment, Village Roadshow Pictures, NPV Entertainment, and Fortis Films, 22 December 2000.

  • “The Proposal.”  By Peter Chiarelli, Touchstone Pictures, K/O Paper Products, and Mandeville Films, 19 June 2009.