Whenever you end one scene and begin another, you run the risk of losing the reader. They have to make a shift — following your story — from one place and time to another place and time. That’s why transitions are critical. In The Beaver, the screenwriter Kyle Killen, effectively employs different narrative devices to stitch together scenes in a seamless fashion.
FADE TO BLACK: Normally these accentuate the break from one scene to the next. However Killen uses FTB on numerous occasions (P. 4, 15, 29, 67, 75, 93, 99) to drive home a question in the reader’s mind: What the hell happens next?
P. 4
Preceding scene: Walter is forced to leave his family and say “goodbye”
Next scene: Jared works Porter about Porter writing an essay for him
P. 15
Preceding scene: The Beaver comes to life and says, “I’m here to save your goddamned life”
Next scene: Porter and Norah have a big argument
P. 29
Preceding scene: Disgusted by his father, Porter pounds his head against bedroom wall
Next scene: Series of shots of Walter and The Beaver leading a ‘normal’ life
P. 67
Preceding scene: Porter pounds his head so hard against wall, he’s knocked unconscious
Next scene: Playing hardball, Meredith doesn’t allow Henry’s friends to come home
P. 75
Preceding scene: His family abandoning him, Walter collapses onto Porter’s bed
Next scene: News report about the overnight success of Mr. Beaver Woodchopper
P. 93
Preceding scene: Walter cuts off his puppet hand
Next scene: Series of shots that show collapse of national hand puppet frenzy
P. 99
Preceding scene: Walter watches Meredith leave the psych hospital — without him
Next scene: Out of the blue, Norah shows up to talk with Porter
Each preceding scene ends with a type of ‘cliffhanger.’ Each following scene embraces the transition by jumping to a new and interesting scene.
CUT TO: Killen oftentimes uses CUT TO as a ‘softer’ form of FADE TO BLACK, signifying a time-jump within a scene sequence, not a shift in scenes. A few examples:
P. 11
Preceding scene: After hugging Alan Thicke on TV, Walter “looks around the room, his face suddenly blank”
Next scene: “Walter has fashioned the necktie into a noose around the shower rod”
P. 59
Preceding scene: After stopping his car outside an abandoned hospital building, Norah says, “Mmm. Still not doing it for me.”
Next scene: Outside Porter’s car, he opens the trunk to reveal “various spray and regular paints” with Porter saying, “Ta-da.”
P. 74
A sequence as Walter moves from one location in his now deserted home to another
VISUAL TO VISUAL: Part of the script’s excellent visual sensibilities are evident in a number of visual to visual transitions. A few examples:
P. 33
Preceding scene: “CLOSE ON Walter’s lips. He subtly bites the right corner of his lower lip…”
Next scene: “CLOSE ON Porter’s lips. He’s biting his lower one exactly like Walter…”
P. 40
Preceding scene: A split screen of Walter and Porter doing things that “almost match,” ending with Walter and VP
Next scene: Walter and VP work montage
P. 56
Preceding scene: Intercuts between Walter and Porter getting dressed for respective dates
Next scene: “Walter checks The Beaver in the mirror, showing his big grin.”
It’s interesting to note that while these transitions help to smooth the shift from one scene to the next, the visual to visual / split screen / intercuts achieve the effect of putting Walter and Porter in proximity — when they aren’t actually near each other.
[Of course, that is one of my criticisms of the script -- that there is a part of the script that wants it to be a father-son story, yet the 2 characters hardly interact. Which makes me wonder if these visual transitions Killen uses is an attempt to imply them relating, by having them 'bump up' against each other visually.]
Generally the best transitions are tied to the movement of the plot, one scene ending with a built-in question — what happens next — which propels the reader into the next scene. In a way, that is the definition of narrative drive. Transitions like FADE TO BLACK, CUT TO, and visual to visual can not only augment those shifts, but also make for a better, more visual read.
Scott;
I noticed the FTB transitions were predominantly (five out of seven) associated with Walter and Porter. When combined with the Visual to Visual scenes; it leads me to wonder if the story really wasn’t about a father/son relationship, too.
Given that idea, the role of the Beaver becomes a Mentor figure for Walter and a Trickster for Porter (and everyone else).
Other than the “Killer Opening” (for me the first four pages), two scenes really stuck with me.
When Norah explains that the reason she’s emulating her brother wasn’t an attempt to replace him, rather it was her way of getting closer to him (p. 102) I was struck by the similarity of Porter keeping his Similarities Journal. His relationship with Walter was taken away by Walter sinking deeper into depression as Porter grew older and was more in need of his father/son relationship than his mother/son relationship.
The other was when Walter cut off his hand to free himself from the Beaver. I know several readers won’t agree with me on this, but up to that point, I found the story to be nothing more than an exaggeration of art imitating life. It may be that at this stage in my life I’ve known several people who have had to deal with severe bouts of depression brought on by (mostly) job stress that having the Beaver show up and take over Walter’s life didn’t seem wildly over exaggerated, that type of stress is why I left financial brokerage after twelve years. But when he deliberately cut his hand off, that was when it went over the top for me and was no longer a believable suspended-reality story (does that make sense?). If the Beaver became separated from him in an accident, the same conclusion to the story could be reached and it may be less awkward.
Overall, I really enjoyed the story. I kept going back and forth between Steve Carell and Jim Carrey, rereading several scenes with the other as lead, and it worked for me with both men – up until he cut his hand off. But after that, it came back. I can understand why this was the top Black Lister.
Finally, your takeaways are very helpful; informative and instructional as ever. Thank you.
Tom
Tom, you make an interesting point. And it makes me wonder what the ending would have been like had The Beaver been cut off by accident.
I guess a big part of it boils down to whether the reader buys that last section of Act II, where the family has left Walter, he is drooping back into his 'old self' (sleeping, depression), and he finally has had enough of The Beaver (read: The Dictator). His unsettled mental state combined with desperation — is that enough for a reader to buy Walter cutting off his own hand?
Like you, I've known several people who have gone through periods of deep depression. My old therapist described the experience this way: It's like you can only see one future, and it's a bleak future. There are no other paths, no other choices, just this one inescapable route toward darkness.
Could it be that before Walter took that last step toward the 'darkness,' his last shred of Walter-Ego-Self decided to make a stand and cleave The Beaver?
I think Walter HAS to "cleave the Beaver". As is, he's already an unusually inactive protagonist for most of the film – certainly all of Act 2. This is the one major action he takes in the film, and he must take it. If the beaver was sheared off by accident, what would that say about Walter? Not only is he too screwed up to properly kill himself, he's too screwed up to keep his hand-pupptet. It's a tough road to go down, but by cutting off his own hand, we finally get a positive measure of this man – what he's willing to do to reconnect with his family and get his mental health back.
All I know is that I enjoyed The Beaver – I had tears in my eyes as Walter rehabilitated and reconnected with his family.
I wanted to find out if the portrait of the lady in the black dress to the right of the door frame as Walter and Porter embraced and Jodi Foster backed out and the film ended was a significant person?