“Leapfrog or Box?” someone asks Clive Owen.
I am watching Duplicity, the new Tony Gilroy film starring Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. It’s about spies. Clive is one. And he and a partner are trying to lose a “tail” following Clive on the streets of Manhattan.
“Leapfrog or Box?” he is asked again.
“Leapfrog,” Clive answers.
Suddenly the move is made. Clive’s partner runs interference, and Clive escapes to meet his contact.
Throughout Duplicity, I am dropped into the lingo and etiquette of corporate spies. And though I get the sense it’s just mumbo jumbo (are there such elude-a-tail strategies?), I don’t care. It’s fun stuff!
And rushing to keep up with what’s happening, true or not, is a big part of what makes it fun.
In my class I harp on the importance of conflict; it’s what attracts our attention. And one of the best ways to increase the conflict in any movie is to make me, the audience, “lean forward” to stay with what’s happening. The conflict is my need to know vs. the movie’s effort to, in a sense, keep me at arm’s length. And keeping me guessing beats the overkill of explaining what’s happening every time.
As an audience, we do not have to know everything as it unfolds at the exact time it’s unfolding. But what we do need to keep our eye on, and what writers must deliver, is: the bouncing ball. What’s that?
When we hear a pitch, read a script, or see the finished product onscreen, the “bouncing ball” is how the hero or heroes are transforming. I am a caveman. I read 1000 different caveman details watching a movie. And in truth it’s usually not the plot details, but the more primal, more human points of interest.
I don’t have to be told anything to keep up — so long as I am given a story at base about a hero who is transforming, and all the plot, all the lingo, is just on the surface of the primal part that’s the real story:
How does this person begin, how does he end, and why is this story we’re telling “the most important event that will ever happen to him or her”?
That’s all I care about. Throw jargon at me, mislead me with plot devices, dazzle me with locations, but keep me interested in the “Turn, Turn, Turn” of character change. We do not have to explain anything more.
Does Duplicity do that? I will leave that for you to decide. But I will say that plot-wise, detail-wise, I was just one step behind the entire time — and that’s a good thing, especially in the hands of a master like Gilroy, who displayed similar technique in the brilliant Michael Clayton.
I wonder what “Box” is? Maybe I’ll find out in Duplicity 2!
11 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leapfrog is a surveillance term that describes what the surveillant does to the target, which is the opposite of the way it is used in the movie, so I wonder if box is fiction?
Leapfrog in practice applies to surveillance on foot and by vehicle. Multiple surveillants “sandwich” the target, alternating between following and leading the target.
Cool! Even better!! Thanks Eric!! It restores my faith in lingo!!
Hey, do I need to know this? Yes. Yes, I think I do.
A “box” is when the following team has people ahead and behind the target and also has people on the other side of the street. If the target suddenly crosses the street, then the followers don’t have to rush to keep up. Instead the team on the other side picks up the target and the surveillance continues. If they are following in cars, then the followers have cars on the parallel streets. This avoids the difficult left turns that can break a surveillance. This is also a method to follow, not to elude.
Blake, I know you’re not a big fan of too much research, but I had a blast doing research with the FBI for my current spec. I won’t use 90% of the info I picked up, but it gives me more colors for my palette from which to choose or mix.
Wow just reading these replies makes me feel like I’m being watched. No, wait, actually that’s normal for me! Can’t wait to see the movie now!
So true. The reader/viewer should be immersed in the story. We’re supposed to transport people into our fiction, and it’s the details that do it.
For the record, I thought Duplicity was a blast — I’m with you on Gilroy’s adept way at witholding and divulging information.
The whole notion of how Duplicity plays within the current zeitgeist intrigues me. All the populace now knows that corporations are as heartless as sociopaths, so it’s easy to root for crooks seeking to defraud a corporation. But with all the lashback at AIG execs getting million-dollar bonuses for failing, are we fully with Claire and Ray in wanting them to trick their employers?
Blake, combining your Duplicity post with the post about hard times removing excess from films — I felt that the ending of Duplicity knocked 20% off the box office, while my wife felt it was right for the times. Care to opine?
Maybe Clive’s partner was asking him which method the tail was using so he’d know which counter to use.
Just a guess — I haven’t seen the film yet.
While I admire Gilroy and his cast, and loved Michael Clayton, jargon and structure tricks were not enough to engage me when it came to DUPLICITY.
Feel free to call me inattentive, but this exercise in plot over story left me bored and confused. The stakes were weak from the get-go; is there any duller motivation than, “let’s get rich”? Compare this with the retired spies who populated the recent Liam Neeson hit, TAKEN (our collective heartfelt condolences to him and his family). These guys were interesting and engaging for a number of reasons, starting with MOTIVATION. I never cared for a moment if Pretty Woman and Clive made it as a couple or as individuals.
At the risk of being a spoiler, the big “twist” at the end was a cheat. In the best Agatha Christie tradition, YOU CAN’T JUST REVEAL AN ENTIRLEY DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW AT THE END OF THE MOVIE WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL FOR THE AUDIENCE/READER TO FOLLOW BACKWARDS AND SAY, ‘YOU GOT ME! NOW I GET IT! Even something as implausible as M Night Shamalamma’s ‘Sixth Sense’ made us appreciate the clues were all there to see if we had caught them.
Also, check out the remake THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR for a great sexy amoral couple who had complex issues and real emotional currency to spend. You gotta make us care!*
Discuss
Talk among yourselves…
* no Cats! were harmed in the expression of this opinion.
I saw Duplicity last night and I’m with you on this one Rick. The plot was clever and thick but the broken timeline left plenty of room for confusion in my pre-Neandethal brain. A “gotcha” flashback as a denouement may have given me a more satisfactory “Aha, now I get it” moment (Fight club, for me, is a good example).
I definitely lacked empathy with the lead characters. Maybe a few cat saves would have helped along with a richer backstory or a stronger motivational/thematic subplot. (Dara Marks suggests considering the A story as a train with the B story as the cargo carrying the theme of the story)
Their individual character arcs, from suspicion to trust played a little flat. Although this theme was nice shadowed by the corporate mistrust in the A story. (Again, good ‘ole Dara has some strong opinions and good ideas on the character arc can/should carrying the theme.)
If someone can explain the second repeat of the ‘I remember women I shag’ scene in Rome may help bring me closer to filmatic closure.
“My cousin went to school with Clive’s brother in Coventry” is my only claim to fame so I’m all for Clive climbing up the hollywood food chain. Gives me hope that a Brummie (a colloquialism for someone from Birmingham, for those of you in the backwaters of LA ;-)) can make it with the big boyz.
I’m looking forward to meeting some of you guyz at the London seminar. Should be an interesting couple of dayz (excuse the profusion of z’s, must be something I had for breakfast).