When I first heard about this film, I was interested. The story of the Iran Hostage Crisis hits a personal note with me in that my birthday shares that same tragic date.
It was a stressful situation, and one that rocked Carter’s presidency. (So much so that if it DIDN’T happen we may not have ended up with a President Reagan.) Luckily it was all resolved in the end.
The script attempts to take a true story and make it into a Hollywood blockbuster, but can the real movie about a fake movie about a real mission be something we all want to see?
Don’t forget you can download the script here.
1.) Marketability of the Idea
It’s based on a true story. That right there will capture a decent portion of the public allowing the author to at least pitch the idea.
Being that Iran’s currently in the news a lot, and a tension seems to be mounting, this can’t hurt the idea’s chances either.
Ultimately, you’re taking a spy recovery mission and setting it into a piece of American History.
People will be interested.
2.) Plot Stability
The plot of the movie is VERY fast paced.
We’re dumped right in the middle of a protest that turns into the taking of the US embassy in Iran.
From there we have six folks escaping and hiding with the Canadians (Tim Hortons, eh?), and ultimately led back to Washington to hear what folks are planning to do about it.
Ideas are thrown out, and it’s up to the main character, Tony Mendez, to come up with a plan.
His idea, to pose as a sci-fi film crew from Canada wanting to shoot on location in Tehran.
A bit far fetched, perhaps, but it’s so silly it just might work…
(An actual line from the script. At least the last part is.)
As the rest of the plot flushes out, the story does a good job of bouncing us around.
Tony doesn’t just go over to Iran, give the folks their fake backgrounds, and walk right onto the plane past security.
A whole bunch of other things are going on in the background.
The group has to head out, for the first time since hiding, to a crowded bazaar where they will pretend to be scouting a location. All in the midst of a very sensitive, and anti-US population. Will a maple leaf flag be enough to disguise them?
The CIA pulls the plug on the entire operation a day before it they board the plane.
The shredded documents are being reassembled and it’s discovered six people are missing.
AND those six people just happen to match the photographs of the people who were at the bazaar the day before. Uh-oh!
As I stated above, we as the readers weren’t led in a straight line from the beginning to the end. Did we know they would ultimately get out? Deep down, yes, but things were kept exciting as we went through.
I’ll talk about this below, but we need to make sure we’re creating doubt as we go, while also spicing things up. If not, the reader gets bored, and when a reader gets bored chances are your script gets tossed.
We can’t let that happen.
The characters were rather bland.
A lot of the CIA and government types all blended together.
As did the group of six holed up with the Canuckleheads.
Was this due to using real people and names? I don’t know, but what I can tell you is that I only remembered maybe two characters from each group. Just enough to get me through the story, but bad enough to take me out of it as I wondered, “Okay, who’s this person again?”
The three characters worth noting were Mendez, Siegel, and Chambers.
All had a very cynical way of looking at the world that felt refreshing and interesting enough that I looked forward to seeing their names in the dialogue section.
Examples to follow.
4.) Dialogue and Description
Most of the dialogue was okay, sans for some really good bits from the three characters mentioned above.
You can send in training wheels
and wait at the border with
Attention turns to Mendez. O’Donnell shifts. Engell,
It’s 300 miles to the Turkish
crossings. They’d need a support
crew behind them with a tire pump.
It’s winter time, and the folks and the State Department wanting to call the shots don’t seem to be thinking rationally or aren’t sensing the urgency of the situation.
Not going to copy and paste it, but I thought there was a really cool scene here. Instead of going over what each character thinks, they’re all spitballing ideas. Most of them aren’t completing a thought before being interrupted. This seems more realistic of how a time sensitive brain storming session would go.
How you getting in the embassy?
Six got away. They’re hiding in
the city. I’m going over to get
What am I making?
I need you to help me make a fake
You’ve come to the right place. *
I need to set up a production
company and build a cover around
making a movie.
That we’re not going to make.
You want to go around Hollywood
acting like you’re an important
person in the movie business.
But you don’t want to actually do
You’ll fit right in.
I think this was in one of the previews, but as I mentioned, it shows a unique voice in relation to a very tense and serious situation. (Also helps that they’re poking fun a bit of Hollow-wood.)
How’d you always get around the
There’s always another prick one
floor higher up.
What is the most interesting way a character can say this?
Instead of, “What should I do?” With a reply of, “Ask his boss!”
The dialogue used is unique, both answering the questions and providing humor.
It was a bit hard to follow at times. There was a lot going on, especially at the beginning.
Once we settle into the story though, things start to clear up, and we’re treated to quite a few gems of imagery.
…the GATE CHAIN IS CUT and protestors FLOOD through the
embassy gates, a human dam breaking —
They walk through an open floor of cubicles lined with
offices, we get a look at the 1979 CIA headquarters:
nothing sleek or sexy about the interior. An open area
of desks where Woodward and Bernstein might be spilling
coffee on their thick ‘70s ties. Papers and files
everywhere. Trash emptying happens only once a week.
Cigarette and cigar butts in ashtrays. Everything is
perpetually a mess. And typewriters. The constant
percussive sound of telexes and typing is the metronome
that beats out the day here.
Although I thought this needed a bit of breaking up, just from the standpoint of making it more manageable, it nonetheless made me visualize how work got done in the late 70s.
(And I don’t think I missed out on anything, lol.)
The MOBS OF PEOPLE WITH BOXES OF THEIR WORLDLY BELONGINGS puts in high relief that Tony is going into a place that
everyone else is desperately fleeing.
I especially liked this one, as it not only described what was going on in the scene, but there was a certain subtext that was referenced to the environment.
It stressed the point that Tony is playing with fire, and realistically won’t make it out.
Scene numbers and “we see.”
When writing our specs, we don’t really need scene numbers, so don’t worry too much about them.
The second part of this is really frustrating though. Don’t use “we see.” We, as humans, don’t generally like to be told what to do anyway, so you’ll already be at odds there. Couple that with the fact that it’s sloppy writing, and your reader might not hang around.
In this script I noticed it a lot at the beginning, and also in various parts where actual footage or something historical was mentioned almost signaling us to remember that, “Hey, this really HAPPENED!”
A better way to “lead” your reader was mentioned quite a while ago by one of our members. For that see How to Direct the Camera without Seeming to.
The best idea I took away from this story is to keep things moving.
I can’t stress enough that we need to keep readers on their toes which leads to them being engaged.
This script achieved that. I was engaged.
From how Tony comes up with the plan until the minute the airplane leaves the Iranian runway, the plot kept me busy.
We as writers need to learn to do the same things in our scripts. If our protagonist is going in too straight a line, another character, action, or consequence needs to get in his or her way.
When hashing out a plot, beat characters up a little, or at the very least, pull the rug out from under them.
7.) What (if anything) should we avoid emulating?
The up side is also part of the down here.
At times there was TOO MUCH going on.
In a few spots, I had no clue what was going on, so I just skipped ahead to the next scene, ESPECIALLY in the too frequent times of characters speaking simultaneously. The saving grace for this script was that it had enough to draw me back in.
Characters talking at the same time. Real life footage playing against the events in the movie, too many characters. It was all very hard to keep straight.
(Don’t believe me, read the first few pages of the embassy being overrun. All three of those problems happen within a few initial pages)
It’s good to have twists and turns, but we can’t overcomplicate things. That leads to a reader getting lost, and a lost reader is almost as bad as a bored reader, especially if we don’t provide them a road back from their confusion.
Rating: Kept my interest.
(Alternate Rating: Read if you’re writing a hostage/escape thriller.)