Filmmaking 101 #3: Lessons from Casino Royale
How to write scenes that drip with subtext.
On rare occasion, a film from an established IP breaks-free of its long-established conventions and morphs into something that resembles, dare I say, “art”?
Behold, this occurred in 2006 with the soft-reboot of the James Bond franchise, with Daniel Craig stepping into the role of the titular double-0 agent. Casino Royale has several exquisite moments, but after many views, the scene I continue to return to is undoubtedly the scene which we shall simply dub, “The Train Scene”.
Specifically, the element which makes this scene transcend historical James Bond scenes and reach for new heights is the screenwriting technique of Subtext.
Subtext is when dialogue has multiple layers of meaning. Characters could be saying one thing, and meaning something different. Or, they could be trying to say two equally important things at the same time.
It's a powerful tool characters use to try and achieve their goals or get what they want.
And from an audience perspective, it helps us viewers become active participants within a scene by making us try to figure out exactly what's going on. Basically it's the filmmakers giving the audience the equation of 2+2, instead of simply spoon-feeding us the number 4.
As long as this done with care and intention, making the audience work a bit to get at some of the richness of a scene makes for a much more memorable and enjoyable viewing experience.
Let's take a look at Casino Royale to see how this's done:
Vesper: I’m on the money.
Bond: Every penny of it.
The writers brilliant start this scene with a rare line that has triple-meaning. Adding too much subtext can make a scene convoluted, but in this case it works. Bond is effectively saying these two things.
He's acknowledging Vesper's comment that she's in charge of the buy-in money for the poker game.
He's saying she's attractive.
Two meanings for the price of one line. A line that only has four words in it, I might add. That's a lot to pack into such a small sentence.
But Ryan, didn't you just say that this line had THREE meanings. Why yes, yes I did. The last meaning is for fans of the Bond-franchise, specifically. Vesper saying she's the money, with Bond immediately responding with a sentence containing the word "Penny" is a call-back to the famous Bond character of Moneypenny. The average viewer won't get it, and we don't even get introduced to this character until Film 3 of the Daniel Craig Bond films, but it's a wink-wink to Bond fans, and done in a way that doesn't disrupt the flow of the scene in the slightest.
Two characters, two lines, eight words, three meanings. That's some good writing.
No, that's some GREAT writing.
Vesper: The treasury has agreed to stake you in the game.
Bond: Vesper. I do hope you gave your parents hell for that.
Vesper: Your boss must be well connected. I’ve never seen so much go out the door so quickly.
Bond: Or so stylishly. May I ask you where it is?
Vesper ignores the quip, and immediately moves to business, but Bond would rather focus on Vesper, and we have another subtextual line:
Vesper: I’ve never seen so much go out the door so quickly.
Bond: Or so stylishly.
On the surface, the money is being discussed, but Bond again is speaking about Vesper. Soon enough, Vesper will turn the tables on Bond with similar subtextual quips, but first we need to get some plot details out of the way. While this scene is about the characters for sure, nearly every scene should move the plot along as well, and we take just a few seconds to hear this piece of information that will be vital to the plot later-on:
Vesper: 10 million was wired to your account in Montenegro with a contingency for give more if I deem it a prudent investment. I suppose you’ve given some thought to the notion that if you lose, our government will have directly financed terrorism.......what looks good?
We quickly interrupt with a quick exterior shot of the train to show a brief passage of time, which lets us pick-up the conversation a bit further in, avoiding the small-talk, but acknowledging that, realistically, it occurred.
Vesper: So you’re telling me it’s a matter of probability in our odds. I was worried there was some chance involved.
Bond: Only if one assumes that the person with the best hand wins.
Vesper: So that would be what you call bluffing?
Bond: You’ve heard the term? Then you’ll also know that in poker you never play your hand. You play the man across from you.
Vesper: And you’re good at reading people.
Bond: Of course I am. Which is why I’ve been able to detect an undercurrent of sarcasm in your voice.
Vesper: I am now assured our money is in good hands.
Bond: You don’t think this is a very good plan, do you?
Vesper: So there is a plan? I got the impression we were risking millions of dollars and hundreds of lives on a game of luck...what else can you surmise, Mr. Bond?
Vesper: About you, Miss Lynd? Well, your beauty’s a problem. You worry you won’t be taken seriously.
Bond subtly suggests to Vesper that there is more to this conversation than just money and poker, which she instantly picks up on, and runs with. This is an example of subtext that leads to an actual change in the primary conversation that is happening at the surface. Bond and Vesper effectively agree to discuss one another, without of course actually agreeing to.
Vesper: So there is a plan? I got the impression we were risking millions of dollars and hundreds of lives on a game of luck...what else can you surmise, Mr. Bond?
Bond: About you, Miss Lynd? Well, your beauty’s a problem. You worry you won’t be taken seriously.
Vesper: Which one can say of any attractive woman with half a brain.
Bond: True, but this one overcompensates by wearing slightly masculine clothing, being more aggressive than her female colleagues. Which gives her a somewhat prickly demeanor. And ironically enough, makes it less likely for her to be accepted and promoted by her male superiors. Who mistake her insecurities for arrogance. Now I’d have normally gone with only child, but um, you see by the way you ignored the quibble about your parents, I’m going to have to go with orphan.
Now before you say, "Wait a minute - there's no subtext here!", the writers have done something quite clever. Notice that Bond never says "you" about Vesper. He doesn't say, "You have a prickly demeanor. You won't be accepted and promoted by your male superiors. Your insecurities make you arrogant."
Instead, Bond refers to Vesper in the third person for this entire line. "This one overcompensates...which gives her...who mistakes her."
So, what does this accomplish? It makes the line more nuanced, by allowing Bond to effectively critique her without going full-force into criticism. It's subtle, but it allows Vesper to dish it right back at Bond with similar third-person critiques:
Vesper: All right. By the cut of your suit you went to Oxford or wherever, and actually think human beings dress like that, but you wear it with such disdain my guess is you didn’t come from money, and your school friends never let you forget it. Which means you were at that school by the grace of someone else’s charity, hence the chip on your shoulder. And since your first thought about me ran to orphan, that’s what I’d say you are.
And then Vesper hits a nerve. A nerve which won't fully pay-off until two films later:
Vesper: And since your first thought about me ran to orphan, that’s what I’d say you are.
Bond just stares at Vesper.
Vesper: Oh you are? I like this poker thing.
Not only does Vesper dish it back to Bond, she then brings it all full-circle back to poker, which Bond was smugly leading with only a moment ago. Of course, she doesn't really care an ounce about poker, which is where the subtext comes in. Their previous discussion about poker and bluffing and reading people was effectively just used for her to brilliantly take control of the conversation. She's effectively brought the whole thing back on Bond's head with just a simple line. But she doesn't stop there:
Vesper: And that makes perfect sense since MI6 looks for maladjusted young men who give little thought to sacrificing others in order to protect queen and country. You know, former SAS types with easy smiles and expensive watches. Rolex?
Bond: Omega.
Bond knows that the tables have turned on the conversation, and the passes he made at her at the beginning of the scene are coming back to bite him. He answers her question about the watch, a question which is really just her way of showing that she knows just as much about the finer things that James Bond cares about as he does, and that she has the mental fortitude to equal him in a verbal duel. All these things are happening under the surface. She never says, "I've got you, haha." It's all in the subtle, subtextual jabs.
And she continues to take the upper-hand:
Vesper: Beautiful. Now having just met you, I wouldn’t go as far as calling you a cold-hearted bastard.
Bond: No, of course not.
Vesper: But it wouldn’t be a stretch to imagine you think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits.
Pause.
Subtext again: "No Mr. Bond - your flirting and passes are soundly rejected." For the first time, someone had nailed Bond's character to his face. And for the first time, Bond has nothing to say.
Vesper: So as charming as you are, Mr. Bond, I will be keeping my eye on our government’s money, and off your perfectly formed ass.
Bond: You noticed.
Vesper: Even accountants have imagination.
Now of course we know where this relationship is going, so there had to be some quip from Vesper that she does find Bond attractive in order to set-up the rest of the film, but she says it in such a way that it's still a jab. Even though Bond does get in one final poke too:
Bond: You noticed.
His ego can only be ruined so far, and he keeps a shred of dignity with yet another subtextual line. Underneath the surface, he acknowledges her acknowledgement that she does find him somewhat attractive. But she still ends with the upper-hand:
Vesper: Even accountants have imagination. How was your lamb?
Bond: Skewered. One sympathizes.
Bond acknowledges that he has lost this verbal duel, but his mild joke leaves their parting on amicable terms, keeping the door open for their relationship to develop throughout the rest of the film.
The back and forth verbal sparring, smothered with subtext, is what makes this one of the best scenes in the film.
It moved the story along in three ways:
We meet a vital character to both the plot and Bond's character development.
An important plot-point has been established: the 10 million dollar buy-in with a contingency re-buy.
And we've learned quite a bit about both character's background without having to spend a smidge of time with nasty flashbacks or expositions. Think about how much time we would have wasted if everything we learned about Bond in this scene was done through actual scenes or throwaway lines "I was born an orphan, etc. etc." BLAH.
Instead, we learn so much about both characters AND their budding relationship with each other through what's not said, what is said, and then how it's said. Or in this case, how it's written. And we do this in roughly four minutes. When you pack that much good stuff into so little time, that's a surefire way to get your audiences to enjoy your scenes...presuming they're filmed and acted well, of course.
So for all my aspiring and indie filmmakers who are trying to write the best scripts possible, you can add subtext to your own scenes by using these tips:
Determine what the main point of the scene is. What are you trying to get across? In the case of this scene, we're setting up Bond's character and backstory, as well as establishing his most important relationship in the film.
Then, ask yourself how you can come at it in a way that's not on the nose. In a way that's opposite from what your audience might expect. In this scene, it's Bond's flirting and ego about his poker experience that eventually leads to Vesper unravelling the layers of his literal character directly to his face.
Ok, this one's going to sound backwards. But if you're having difficulties with the scene, try to write the scene on-the-nose first. This will help you figure out what the heart of the scene is actually about.
Then, add a layer on top of the subtext. Ask yourself what else could the characters be talking about, that could either dually mean what they're actually saying, or lead to what they want to say. In Casino Royale, the top-most layer was money and poker, which had dual meanings AND led to Bond and Vesper discussing each other.
Cut-out as much dialogue as possible, especially lines of characters explicitly saying what they think or feel. Now of course you'll still want the meaning to be clear, but try something akin to what Vesper does.
Instead of saying, "You're attractive, Mr. Bond.", she says, "Even accountants have imagination." Ask yourself how you can make the lines as subtle as possible. This can often be doing by coming at the line from a different angle, or having the character saying something opposite of what is meant.
There are a plethora of other ways to write subtext within your scenes, including, believe-it-or-not, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Yes, this Star Wars film actually has some subtext to it. From a certain point of view😉.
But until next time, have fun watching movies and making movies!