GITS Script Reading & Analysis: “Buried” — Structure

This week we are analyzing the screenplay for the 2010 movie Buried, written by Chris Sparling.

You may access the script here.

Today we discuss the script’s structure.

Three-act structure? A scene-by-scene breakdown? Major plot points? Sequences? Here is your chance to use your analytical muscles.

See you in comments!

For Day 1 of our analysis of Buried, go here.

This is our last script to read and analyze in 2011, so jump in before it’s too late.

NOTE: THIS SERIES AND THE USE OF SCRIPTS IS STRICTLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES!

UPDATE: I reached out to Chris Sparling, the screenwriter of Buried to see if he would answer some questions about the movie for us, and he kindly agreed. Here are his responses to questions about the story’s structure:

Scott: As writers, we face countless forks-in-the-road with every story we create. With “Buried,” you made some really tough choices, going down paths that would seem to be harder ones to take. For example, you decided once you were in the coffin, the story would stay there. No flashbacks, no cutting away to other characters and their perspective on the narrative. What was your thinking behind that choice?

Chris: It’s funny, but this is always the first question people ask me, which is why I wish there was a cooler answer I could give. But the fact is, the movie stayed in the box because it was the cheapest way to make the movie! My initial plan with “Buried” was to direct it myself and shoot it for about $5,000. When it took on a bigger life, that’s when the questions (from studio execs, etc.) began popping up about whether or not we should stay in the box the entire time (as well as other “interesting” suggestions). By this point, however, I began to realize that my financially-driven decision is what actually made the movie more interesting creatively, and this is why I pushed to keep the movie in the box for its duration — in spite of now having the money to shoot the other side of the phone conversations. Thankfully, the producers and the director (Rodrigo Cortes) who came on board all felt the same way as I did, as did Ryan Reynolds.

SM: Having made that choice to stay inside the coffin with the Protagonist Paul Conroy, what did you find to be some of the most difficult aspects of crafting a viable story because of the physical limitations you set on yourself?

CS: I suppose it was trying to make sure the story didn’t seem redundant. It needed to always be changing, despite the physical limitations imposed by the setting. Primarily, this meant the risk/stakes had to keep escalating, just as the “set” itself had to evolve, which was accomplished with the various light sources and even Paul’s body position.

SM: Even though the story is a psychological thriller, the narrative has a kind of action movie feel to it with significant plot points happening every 10 pages or so, almost as if per the Whammo theory popularized by Joel Silver [“Every 10 minutes, something has to go ‘whammo’”]. Was this a conscious effort on your part, maybe even thinking about your story like an action script, or did that structure and feel just evolve naturally as you crafted the plot?

CS: It was not done consciously, but there was never any doubt that there had to be plenty of those sort of moments. Otherwise, the movie would have become tedious; just a dude in a box making a bunch of phone call. Plus, I feel that contained movies of any kind, the audience has the opportunity to analyze everything more so than they would with a more open film because there’s no cutting away to different scenery, set pieces, other characters, etc. Therefore, it’s vital that you don’t allow things to get boring. Personally, I try to avoid all the clichés with my scripts (kidding at inopportune moments, pithy remarks while catastrophe strikes, etc.), and instead stick to people acting awkwardly realistic. I feel this is what makes these “Whammo” moments ring true.
SM: Speaking of ‘whammos,’ the script has a number of ticking clocks (e.g., the phone’s battery power, the lighter’s fuel, the flashlight’s batteries) and complications (e.g., phone service going out, bombing of the village). Can you describe what your brainstorming process was like in generating those narrative elements. Was that easy or did you find you had to keep pushing yourself to come up with so many things that could go wrong and create tension?

CS: Some came easier than others. Naturally, the dwindling oxygen was a given, as was the cell phone battery to some extent. The bombing of the village came about when I decided I wanted a specific way to justify the coffin cracking and sand to pour in. At first, I thought maybe the weight of the sand alone might be enough to cause it to eventually crack, but I felt this moment could be bigger. And, I wanted to introduce as many ‘outside’ elements into the story as I could; from the bag of items left for Paul to the snake that slithers into the coffin through a hole while Paul is asleep.

SM: About the ending, do you remember when in your writing process you knew that was the way the story had to resolve itself? Were you ever tempted to give it a happy ending [i.e., Paul gets rescued] and if so, why did you resist that impulse? If not, why does this particular ending work for you?

CS: I always knew it was going to end the way it does. I wasn’t going after shock value; rather, I tried to keep this movie as realistic as possible throughout, and if someone is buried in the middle of the Iraqi desert and you only have a few hours to find them, there’s very little chance you will. You’d be hard pressed to find someone standing on top of the sand in the middle of the desert, never mind buried underneath it. The ending is one of the more polarizing aspects of this film, but if it had ended the way Hollywood says films are supposed to, it would have… well, I’m not sure, actually. But I’m positive it would not have had the same impact.

This is some excellent insight into the mind of a writer. For example, Chris had thought the weight of the sand would be enough to cause the wood of the coffin to crack. Then he figured why not bring in some element of the ‘outside’ world to create a bigger, more dramatic cause — hence the bombing. In other words, he pushed himself to make the story better, and I think you’d have to agree that choice was a stronger one.

Tomorrow as part of our discussion on the story’s characters, we will have more answers from Chris. By the way, you may follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisSparling. 

Comment Archive