Should you include a PDF of your script in your query email?

Driscoll asks:

What's your opinion on attaching your screenplay as a pdf to the query email instead of waiting for them to request it? Is that really bad form? I understand why agents wouldn't want a bunch of physical scripts lying around the office. But with email, it seems like no inconvenience for them. Just don't open the pdf. Also, maybe they're curious enough to want to read the script but not curious enough to respond and risk someone harassing them with emails and calls over whether they read the script.

It's horrible form.  TERRIBLE form!  Do NOT under ANY circumstances send a PDF of a script before getting permission to do so. Looking through the archives, I see I sort of gave this advice almost two years ago, but it's hidden in a post title that doesn't seem to have much to do with queries. 

I cannot stress enough how important it is that you do NOT do this. First, many people will not open any attachments from an unfamiliar source due to the risk of viruses.  Another major thing to be aware of is no one in the business will read your script until you sign a release stating that you will not claim they stole your ideas or sue them should they one day develop a story that is similar to yours. This is why if you shoot CAA, ICM or any other agency an email with an attachment, you'll likely be sent a response that says something to the effect of "Your email was deleted without being read."

Let's say the company you query has a werewolf movie in development and you send them - unsolicited - your brilliant werewolf script. Then, six months later, you open the trades to see that the company you queried to just got Paramount to buy their "Twilight with werewolves" idea for big bucks - and you're certain your concept has been swiped. With luck you find a lawyer ready to sue the pants off that company for "your" money.

Maybe the producers will be lucky and the case gets thrown out, or it goes to court and they win anyway - but they'll still be on the hook for legal fees and will have lost valuable time, to say nothing of the stigma that comes from the accusations of stealing ideas. That's aggravation they simply don't need, and that's exactly the situation a writer creates when they blindly send their script to someone.

You might as well cough on the recipient and say, "Hey, do you want to sample this great strand of Ebloa virus I've got?"

(Not that I'm comparing the quality of your script to the experience of having Ebola, but if you're naive enough to send your script without asking first, the odds of your script being terrible certainly rise.)

The legal reasons are a big part of why this is a bad idea, but also, it's pretty damn presumptuous to send someone a script in your first communication with them.  That's like walking up to a girl at a party and immediately trying to steal second base.  Win your target over, get them excited about reading the script and seduce them into reading the material.

Make this a commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Submit a PDF Until Thou Hast Been Invited."

Tuesday Talkback: Anyone looking for a collaborator?

Wes writes in:

I am a dabbler in the waters of writing and working of a couple of personal projects. What I would like to do is tap your brain and see if you know of a way to throw my hat in the ring as a collaborative contributor or even a sounding board for established writers in the industry.


A cursory survey of your blog archive did not reveal this topic – or I missed it. The latter being more possible as scotch is a normal fuel during my internet excursions.


Any information or proverbial nudge would be appreciated.

Any of you have any suggestions for Wes and anyone like him who might be looking for collaborators?  I admit I don't really have any suggestions of my own.

Screenwriter Alan Trustman responds to THE JUDAS PROPHECY review

Screenwriter Alan Trustman has sent in a response to my review of THE JUDAS PROPHECY.  With his permission, I'm reprinting his email below.

Well, it wasn't as bad a review as I expected, but I was surprised that you reviewed it as a novel. It isn't a novel. It is a novelized screenplay, a format that is more readable than a screenplay but less readable than a novel for the reasons you correctly noted and a few others, including the complete absence of any of the delicious wordplay so beloved by the TIMES BOOK REVIEW and PUBLISHER"S WEEKLY. I will send you the screenplay if you wish but you are busy and your comments about the character and structure are applicable to the screenplay as well as the novelized screenplay. 

I still think a JUDAS movie would make a ton of money, and think the revelation of what is going on would carry the second act and the puzzle of how it would end would carry the third act. But what do I know? 

As for the characters, I deliberate underwrite those characters whose characterizations depend on their not talking very much and that is true of most of my characters. 

With McQueen, I communicated the character in person and at great length and since there was minimal dialogue the character was really not in the scripts. I screened 40 hours of film on him and tailored the character according to what he could do, and what made him comfortable, and then explained it to him. He loved it and played that character in both of my pictures. For a couple of years I was his boy. He would tell everybody that he didn't know how, but I understood him, and he was right, I did. Our relationship lasted until I refused to write his racing car picture because he was determined to make it the story of a loser and I insisted that his audience wanted him to be a winner. I lost the argument and lost him, and lost my movie career because Stan Kamen was not pleased by my refusal. Sic transit gloria mea. 

As for my autobiography, I have written it but cannot publish it for reasons personal, legal, and safety-related. How's that for a teaser? 

Mr. Trustman, after reading that paragraph about your working relationship with McQueen, I think it's safe to say that it our loss that you can't publish your autobiography.  Thanks for your communications with me, and through me, my readers.

Review of THE JUDAS PROPHECY, by "Bullitt" Screenwriter Alan Trustman

Some of you may recall this post from a few weeks ago, where Alan Trustman - the screenwriter of Bullitt and the original The Thomas Crown Affair, once the highest-paid screenwriter in Hollywood - invited me to read one of the six screenplays he was offering for sale through Amazon.com.  Looking through the list, I selected THE JUDAS CONTRACT, which was teased as "a good Dan Brown style movie."

Mr. Trustman had the book on my doorstep about 24 hours after I expressed my interest, and I promised I'd be fair in my critique.  At the same time, it was hard to miss that there was certainly considerable enthusiasm from many readers about this.  A private email to me called him "a legend," while another commenter said that he'd be interested even if Trustman "wrote a Paris Hilton movie."  Still another called him "a national treasure."  Thus, it's probably fair to say that many of you had high expectations for this script, and I'd be lying if I said that excitement didn't seep into my consciousness as well.

No reader relishes writing a bad review - particularly when the author in question has such a great reputation.  Okay, there might be a few critics who enjoy tearing down those who've enjoyed success, either out of spite or jealousy.  I don't ever approach from that angle for a simple reason - I want to be the guy who impresses my boss.  I want to be the guy who "discovers" that diamond in the rough - the brilliant script that must be made and that all of Hollywood will be talking about.

So put yourself in my shoes - I've been handed an undiscovered possible gem from a screenwriter who left the business after writing two major films.  I had visions of finishing the script, calling all the companies I read for and submitting it to them with high marks.  I saw articles in the trades and Entertainment Weekly heralding the Second Coming of Alan Trustman, chock full of retrospectives on his work and - perhaps most importantly in my ego-driven mind - the fact that it was this blog that lead to his renaissance.

In short, I was looking for any excuse to trumpet this script.

And now I see I'm doing something that I've often complained about when Harry Knowles does it - I've written a multi-paragraph introduction to my review - so let's get on track.

The first thing I should mention about THE JUDAS PROPHECY is that it's a "novelized screenplay."  That turns out to be exactly what it sounds like - it's written in novel format, but given the frequent back-and-forth dialogue in many scenes, it's clear that likely there was little rewriting beyond changing the format of the text and dialogue.  I've noticed that when a writer accustomed to working in novels tries their hand at a screenplay, their work in the other medium is pretty obvious.  Usually their description runs long and is prone to getting inside the heads of the characters - an absolute no-no in screenwriting, where everything must be visual.

THE JUDAS PROPHECY bears indications of the opposite, and that makes it somewhat less enjoyable as a novel-reading experience.  Particularly early on, the visual description is sparse and direct.  That's perfect for a screenplay, but somewhat unengaging for a novel.  Most glaring of all is the fact that the story often is told entirely through the dialogue.  In a screenplay, this makes total sense - exposition must be verbalized.  Unless there's a way to explain something visually, the dialogue has to do all the talking.  Without getting too much into the plot, there's a lot here that requires explanation and exposition, and Trustman always stages these moments as conversations between two or more characters.  There are moments I think it might have been beneficial to let prose paragraphs shoulder that burden.  Perhaps the conversations could be summarized, or the exposition laid out directly for the reader rather than forcing those words into the character's mouths.

So I don't want to belabor this point, but as a novel, this wasn't a particularly smooth read for me.  I don't see this being a neat fit on a shelf with Dan Brown, Stephen King or John Grisham novels.  It feels like it's in an intermediate state between novel and screenplay.  I'd bet that a good editor could guide Trustman through a few rewrites that would help purge the "screenplay-isms" and sharpen this into more of a proper novel.  For now, I can only evaluate what's in front of me.

An introduction informs us that the premise came from producer Roger Coman, a friend of Trustman's at the time.  Trustman was excited by the opportunity to do a Dan Brown movie properly, but unfortunately Corman didn't share his enthusiasm for the resulting script.  As he puts it, "Roger wanted Raiders of the Lost Ark.  I wrote The Da Vinci Code."

The first 100 pages of the story are largely constructed around the murders of four pregnant women, with each murder happening in public in a different city.  In each case, the woman is stalked by a mysterious man who approaches her from behind while in a crowd, then stabs her heart from behind by going through the third and fourth ribs.  NYPD Detective Sarah Caruso catches one of the cases and with her superior (and former lover) Detective Lt. Vince Foster, soon discovers that all of the victims had undergone invitro-fertilization.  Beyond that, it seems that their physicians performed a procedure developed by an Italian doctor - one that basically allowed for the alteration of the fetal DNA by using samples from another donor.

In other words, these women were essentially carrying clone babies, bred from a blood sample. 

As the investigation shifts to Italy, Sarah workw with local police investigator Marco Salvi - who happens to be another former lover.  (Yes, it seems Sarah has enjoyed an active sex life - AND has a particular type.)  Aware of the church's opposition to in vitro fertilization, they question a Cardinal who's a liason to the Vatican.  Though he tries to keep them off the scent, the investigators soon learn of the existence of a cult called the Zealots.  Among other things, they've been responsible for the murders of Messanic pretenders.

Judas was a Zealot and the group deeply believed that there would be a second resurrection of Christ.  Heading to Jerusalem, the investigators question Brother Anselem, who maintains the Zealot Museum, but claims that the order isn't active.  Looking at one of their artifacts from the time of Christ, Sarah notices what could be blood on the artifact.

Soon, their investigation leads them to another doctor who performed the invitro procedure - on the four wives of a Saudi prince.  He admits to altering the fetal DNA with DNA from a blood sample whose origin was unknown to him - but which Sarah believes to have come from Jesus Christ himself.  Soon, the hunt is on, as Sarah and her partners must find the pregnant Saudi wives before the Zealots do.  The Zealots will not allow the Second Coming of Christ to come to term and be raised as a Muslim.

CONCEPT/PREMISE - Fairly solid, I'd say.  I might take issue with some of the execution, but I really like the hook of cloning bringing about the Second Coming.  I can't speak at all to how accurate or plausible the Zealot backstory is, but they make for decent antagonists.  Most of all the Saudi scheme to, well, hijack the Second Coming is a nifty idea.  I can easily see this forming the foundation of a strong thriller.

STRUCTURE - Hard to get a sense of given the novel format.  Basically, it feels to me like the first 100 pages is mostly about enacting the first four murders and raising a lot of questions about what connection is among all of these victims.  The second 100 pages is dominated by exposition about the Order of the Zealots and the medical procedures.  That would probably occupy most of the second act in the screenplay, and unfortunately, I felt like I was reading one of those screenplays where the second act isn't moving the plot forward so much as it's explaining the plot.  There's a lot of exposition and stage-setting here, but little real momentum until we reach the revelation about the Saudi wives.  That kicks the story into motion and intensifies the chase, but it might be too late.  Fair at best.

CHARACTERS - Probably one of the weaker elements, as I didn't connect with any of the main characters.  The novel doesn't make much effort to get inside the characters' heads, and Sarah doesn't really have much of an arc beyond a mostly perfunctory romance that doesn't pick up until well into the final third of the script. Even then, the chemistry doesn't quite leap off the page and the sex scene seems to be there mostly to give the female lead an opportunity to appear in a state of undress.

I didn't see a "star part" here.  Instead, I saw characters being moved through a plot much like a player is moved through a video game and is tasked with consuming the proper information that allows the story to move forward.  I'm not saying The Da Vinci Code is perfect by any means, but it did a better job of providing a lead role than THE JUDAS PROPHECY does.

RESOLUTION - I don't want to say too much about how the story wraps up, but I found the ending unsatisfying and anticlimactic.  The main characters are put on the back burner for much of the final 40 pages, and really are denied the opportunity to be a part of the climax.  It's not an ending that I can see working on film - particularly if the intent is to write a mass blockbuster.

If I was to evaluate the viability of this book as source material for a feature film, I'm sorry to say that I probably would give this a PASS.  There's a good hook and a concept, but the story and the characters didn't grab me.  I can't see giving this to many of my bosses and saying, "You have to read this!  There's a hit in here."

I'm somewhat off the hook when it comes to evaluating Mr. Trustman's screenwriting prowess.  And I admit, I wish I was reading the screenplay version of this so that I might have harvested some insight or screenwriting lessons from the submission.  For all I know, it plays better as a screenplay, and perhaps Trustman handled the piles of exposition more deftly there.

I'll conclude by saying that even after just a few short emails, I know that I would probably find Mr. Trustman's memoirs immensely entertaining.  Given his history with Steve McQueen and the details of his relationship with Roger Corman, alluded to in the book's introduction, I suspect I could listen to Alan tell stories for hours.  When he left the comment on my earlier post, he said, "The fat lady has sung," which appears to be his way of saying he's written his last story.  Should that prove to be inaccurate, I'd hope that everyone reading this blog would snap his memoirs up the instant they came off the presses.

Thursday Thanksgiving Throwback: Buffy The Vampire Slayer's "Pangs" - PC or not PC?

This post - one of my most popular posts according to my Blogger Stats - first appeared on November 22, 2010.  Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

--------------------
With Thanksgiving upon us, I decided it was an appropriate time to revisit one of my favorite episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a fourth-season episode called "Pangs." Written by Jane Espenson (whose blog you can find here), it not only boasts a host of great lines, but it's a fine example in character interaction and in tweaking the nose of political correctness.

The action kicks off soon before Thanksgiving, as U.C. Sunnydale hosts a groudbreaking ceremony for a Cultural Partnership Center. The Curator says the timing is appropriate because "that's what the Melting Pot is about, contributions from all cultures making our culture stronger."

In the audience, Buffy's best friend Willow scoffs.

WILLOW
Thanksgiving isn't about blending cultures, it's about one culture wiping out another. Then they make animated specials about the parts with the maize and the big big belt buckles. They don't show you the next scene where all the bison die and Squanto takes a musket ball in the stomach.
Thus, Willow's role as the spokesperson for political sensitivity (or over-sensitivity) is kicked off. I'm always impressed that Willow's attitude is played a much for laughs as it is treated like a legitimate point of view. She sounds preachy if you take her speeches totally at face value and assume she's the writer's mouthpiece, but there are plenty of points in the episode where her hypersensitivity is the butt of the joke.

I think this actually gives the episode more complexity. Having Willow voice disgust at what she calls revisionist history is effective at making the audience examine their own views on the subject, but Espenson makes it clear that her perspective is just one among many. To wit, when Buffy and Willow suggest not having a Thanksgiving dinner, reformed vengeance demon Anya has an interesting reaction.


ANYA
Well I think that's a shame. I love a ritual sacrifice.

BUFFY
It's not really a one of those.

ANYA
To commemorate a past event you kill and eat an animal. It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie.
It wouldn't be a Buffy episode without a mystical opponent, and as luck would have it, the groundbreaking ceremony has freed a vengeance spirit representing the Chumash tribe native to the area. Buffy runs across the spirit just after he's killed an innocent, and when she has the upper hand, the spirit shakes her faith, saying, "You slaughtered my people. Now you kill their spirit. This is a great day for you."

Her hesitation allows the demon to escape, and it almost seems that she too is on Willow's side. But even though the hero of the story has some moral problems with what she's tasked with doing doesn't mean that it's necessary the RIGHT thing to do. She reports back to her Watcher Giles, who asks her to recount the attack with the Indian. Striking a blow for PC sensitivity, Buffy dresses him down for his choice of words.


BUFFY
We don't say Indian.

GILES
Yes! Right. Always behind on the terms. Still trying not to refer to you lot as 'bloody colonials'.

As Giles' line comes with a dose of sarcasm, it's likely that we're meant to side with him over Buffy, thinking Buffy's being too PC. However, that's not even the point - both characters are taking viewpoints perfectly in line with their personalities. That's why this dilemma works - because no one is wrenched out of character just so the writer can make a political point. It makes sense that a college girl like Buffy would take a more touchy-feely view of the situation than the British Giles.


BUFFY
The thing is, I like my evil like my men: evil. You know, straight up, black hat, tie you to the railroad tracks, soon my electro ray will destroy Metropolis BAD. Not all mixed up with guilt and the destruction of an indigenous culture.

GILES
This spirit warrior -- Hus, you called him? -- has killed innocent people.


Normally, Buffy wouldn't bat an eye at killing a vengeance demon no matter the cause. That's her job - she kills vampires and demons and it's always been black-and-white for her. The particulars of these circumstances open her up to shades of grey. Notably, Giles doesn't see it the same way and he takes a similar position in an argument with Willow.


GILES
The Chumash were peaceful.

WILLOW
Oh, they were peaceful, all right. They were fluffy indigenous kittens! 'Til we came along... How about imprisonment? Forced labor? Herded like animals into a mission full of bad European diseases?... You sure we shouldn't be helping him?

GILES
No, I think perhaps we WON'T be helping the angry spirit with his rape and pillage and murder.

WILLOW
Well, okay, no, but we should be helping him redress his wrongs. Bringing the atrocities to light!

GILES
Well, if the history books are filled with them, I'd say they already are --

WILLOW
Giving his land back!
Preachy? I've heard some Buffy viewers over the years complain that it is. I've never taken that view. As I said earlier, everyone is pretty firmly in character. Also, I don't think Giles point is undercut in order to make Willow's. If anything Giles is the voice of reason in this scene, and the PC viewpoint is the one being undercut.

A similar argument later would seem to support that thing. A round of bickering among Buffy's gang prompts an outburst from captured vampire Spike (who's currently tied to a chair in Giles' living room.)

SPIKE
Oh, someone put a stake in me!

XANDER
You got a lot of volunteers in here...

SPIKE
I just can't take this mamby-pamby boo-hooing over the bloody Indians!

WILLOW
The preferred term is --

SPIKE
You won! All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do! That's what Caesar did, he's not going around saying "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it"! The history of the world is not people making friends. You had better weapons, you massacred them, end of story!

BUFFY
Well, I think the Spaniards actually did a lot of... not that I don't like Spaniards...

SPIKE
Listen to you! How are you gonna fight anybody with that attitude?

WILLOW
We don't want to fight anybody.

BUFFY
I just want to have Thanksgiving.

SPIKE
Yeah, good luck.

WILLOW
If we could talk to him --

SPIKE
You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick.

XANDER
Maybe it's the syphilis talking, [Xander is infected with "magic syphilis" at this point] but some of that made sense.

GILES
(under his breath)
I made several of those points earlier, but that's fine, no one listens...

You might say that Spike is the villain and that his endorsement of a particular viewpoint is intended as an indictment of said viewpoint. However, Spike was also quite frequently used as a "truth-teller," the guy who said things that weren't sugar-coated, but were true.

So is "Pangs" just an hour of PC-preachiness, as some fans claim? I don't think so. I think it uses a divisive issue to promote conflict among the main characters and present Buffy with an interesting moral dilemma.

Is every viewer going to come away from this episode with the same reaction? Hopefully not. Even if Jane Espenson had a point she wanted to make, she seems to be smart enough to know that simply preaching an idea that goes unchallenged isn't the way to win converts to your side. Instead, she presents several sides in a way that doesn't significantly undercut one belief in order to make the other belief look good.

In the end, Buffy does end up slaying the Indian warrior, though it's pretty much in a self-defense situation where if she doesn't kill him, she and her friends will be killed to. Would she have killed him had she not been directly threatened? There's no way to know. Maybe she would have tried to reason with him, or tried to pay him back for the atrocities committed on his people.

Though Buffy does her job out of self-preservation, does that mean she's embraced Giles and Spike's point-of-view, or does it just mean she had no choice? It's something to ponder, along with all the other issues the episode dredges up.

I've always admired Espenson for this episode. It's not easy to take such a divisive topic and make it work as fuel for a strong episode. It's got to be even hard to do that while keeping everyone in character and not only using that conflict for drama, but also finely honed comedy.

So if you find yourself writing something in large part because you want to make a political or social point, make sure the message isn't overpowering the story. For my money "Pangs" is successful because it works as an episode of Buffy first, and an exploration of the Native American plight second.

Movie quote bonding - Day 2

I know, I know... this is the exact same topic as yesterday.  But it's the Wednesday before Thanksgiving and much like in school, I've already checked out from doing anything mentally strenuous.  So if you've got a problem with me recycling the topic of obscure movie/TV quotes, you could always just click on another blog.

(Bitter's earpiece buzzes with the tone of a rebuke) I'm sorry.  Do NOT click to another blog.

I thought of a few other instances where gratuitous movie quoting has led to some interesting encounters.  The first was an incident about ten years ago when I was hanging out with a few friends and some of their hangers on.  One of those friends was a girl whom I might have been trying to impress. At the very least, two of my other friends were jockeying for her attention so testosterone and simple male competitiveness motived me to one up them.  The problem was she was there with a guy who was "just a friend," but whom I felt was a bit smarmy, arrogant and annoying.

Later, he'd become one of my best friends.  Go figure.

So anyway, this girl mentions she's studying D.H. Lawrence in one of her classes.  Seeing an opporunity, I quote "They say the sea is cold, but the sea contains the hottest blood of all."

And the twerp/future friend of mine she's with suddenly lights up.  There's a huge flash of recognition on his face and he give me a look that pretty much reads, "I've got your number.  You're not as clever as you think you are."  To confirm that, he quotes (in a Scottish accent) "Admiral! There be whales here!"  For you see, that D.H. Lawrence line is quoted in Star Trek IV by Captain Kirk, and he was letting me know he knew where I learned that from.

This same friend later got off a good one-liner during one of our infrequent Risk games.  My friend Chris was known as a ruthless player and saw an opportunity to eliminate one competitor entirely if he committed all his attack forces at once.  The problem was that would leave his territory vulnerable to his neighbor, Steve.  Chris secured a promise from Steve that he wouldn't attack while Chris went after the other player.

Naturally Steve wasted little time turning on him, crippling Chris's offensive.  "Sorry, Chris," he said.  "I just couldn't resist."

Problem for Steve  - though he screwed over Chris's plan to take the new territories and hold his own, Chris still had more than enough armies to turn them in Steve's direction.  In the duration of one turn, he reduced Steve's forces to about four armies occupying two territories.  This took about half an hour, during which maybe a dozen words were spoken.  It was VERY tense in that room, even as Chris concluded his massacre.

The tension wasn't broken until my friend turned to me and said, "Apology accepted, Captain Needa."  (Quote source: The Empire Strikes Back.  It's what Darth Vader says to a captain who apologizes for failing to capture the Millennium Falcon.)  That at least got the two of us laughing and it soon spread.  It also served to really break the ice between the two of us, and once we realized we had some common interests, it served to cool any hostility between us.  (I would later learn his opinion of me was as unfavorable as mine of him.)

Final one: I use this a lot these days, but the first time I deployed it was after having to sit through a movie for class called WR's Mysteries of the Organism.  I don't wish to detail the torture this film was, but it caused a level of discomfort in that screening room I hadn't seen.  (Hint: Male nudity.  Extreme close-up.  Ten minutes without cutting.)

So as my troupe left the school's theater that evening, I could only say, "So the cops knew internal affairs was setting them up?!"

If you got that without Googling, consider that our secret handshake.

Anyone have any similar anecdotes?

Tuesday Talkback: "Big gulps, huh? Well, see you later!"

Several years ago, I helped out a friend of mine on a short film he was helping to produce.  Early on, I had to sign a release basically clearing the use of my likeness as an extra or in any behind the scenes footage.  As my friend and his fellow producer, Jon, handed me the form to sign, I looked over it and in a mock-puzzled tone asked:

"Why do you need my home address?"  (note: there was no such question on the form.)

My friend rolled his eyes, not understanding why I was being inexplicably difficult.  His companion caught on, though, and without missing a beat said, "We like to send out a mailer."

If you're confused, you probably haven't seen National Lampoon's Vacation, or at least, you haven't seen it as many times as I have.  That's an exchange that happens between Chevy Chase and Bryan Doyle Murray, who plays a motel owner.  I didn't really know Jon at that point, but I knew he was cool.  The trading of obscure quotes was like a secret handshake.

Recently I was at a going away party when some friends arrived with one friend who was... shall we say... WAY in the bag.  His intoxication was a source of amusement and a bit of tension, as no one seemed to be sure of the best way to engage our gregariously inebriated friend.  As you might expect, this lead to some awkward gaps in the conversation.  As it turned out, our drunk friend wasn't so drunk that he couldn't break that awkward silence by saying "Oh, big gulps, huh?  All right! (long pause)  Well, see you later."

We laughed and the tension was broken.  For those of you thinking, "Huh?"  Just check out the clip below.




I've found over the years that all it takes for a stranger to convince me of their coolness is for them to drop in a random quote from a movie I like.  So my question to you is, do you and your friends have a similar kind of short-hand?  Are there movie or TV quotes that have earned a special place among your circle of friends?