Interview (Part 3): Stefan Jaworski

My interview with 2021 Black List writers for his script Mercury.

Stefan Jaworski wrote the original screenplay “Mercury” which landed on the 2021 Black List. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with Stefan about his creative background, his script, the craft of screenwriting, and what making the annual Black List has meant to him.

Today in Part 3 of a 6-part series to run each day through Sunday, Stefan talks about how he drew inspiration for his script from such movies as Collateral, Locke, and Buried.

Scott: You could have had the ending like “Drive” where he just drives off. We don’t know whether he’s going to live or die. I want to get to your ending because I was so impressed. You landed so many things. But let’s go to the front of this thing. Really, it started with the car. It wasn’t Michael. It was the car that really was the combination of that and the emotional implication.

Stefan: Thank you and well, it was a combination of concept and character, because you can’t just do a movie about a car. It’s nothing. It’s flat. The core challenge was to tie the plot to his ghost, tie what he is facing in the A-plot to his character problem. Michael feels guilty that he failed to save his brother from an accident that killed him. Now, he’s looking to be the hero to someone, anyone, and that’s what Laura and Jason pick up on and use against him.

And from that came the idea of almost switching genres at the end of act one. The script starts out as a romance about a solitary young man looking for love. And then, at the end of act one, the turning point not only kicks off the 2nd act, but literally also changes the genre of the movie from romance to action-thriller. I was a little bit in love with trying out to see; “How far can I stretch that?”

Earning that moment, the end of act one and Michael’s choice to help Laura, was probably the most challenging part of writing this. For the rest of the movie to work, I needed to quickly establish and build a relationship that we’re hopefully invested in to a degree, where we understand and root for Michael’s choice to help Laura when she needs him.

Scott: You did it effectively because, at each step along the way, it’s like, “Is he going to do this? Is he really going to go forward with this?” You’ve got to get the reader to buy into his choices. It’s interesting about the car because you do mention at one point this car’s in every scene essentially. Then there’s another point where the car’s almost breathing.

It really is quite a character in there. You mentioned “Collateral.” I mentioned “Drive.” There’s other things like “Locke” or “Gone in 60 Seconds.”

Stefan: Locke, Locke, Locke. I love “Locke,” but it’s also Steven Knight. He’s so brilliant. I remember seeing it and just thinking, “I could never write this”, or rather “I would never write this”, because this idea of having a character so consistently focused on his end goal and then never giving up on it. It’s actually a very unusual story and a very unusual script. Because you sit there expecting change, we’re conditioned and trained to anticipate and expect change, a character arc, and then when Tom Hardy’s character stays consistent to his goal and purpose throughout the film, it really violates classical narrative expectations and in doing so feels profoundly real. And again, it’s such a simple character story about a man, who — layer by layer — sacrifices everything in his life to be the man that his father never was. It’s such an impressive film.

Ryan Reynolds did another amazing contained thriller that I really love, with Spanish director Rodrigo Cortez, called “Buried.”

Scott: Sure. I know Chris Sparling who wrote it.

Stefan: Chris Sparling wrote that. Such an amazing movie. One of my all-time favorites. I was so impressed by the craft of that. I was like, “How can you pace a thriller like that with a guy in a coffin?” It has such pace. I was so blown away by that. Really impressive. And something I personally strive to do. I try constantly to find something that has pace, has surprise, has that level of plotting but remains grounded in character all the time. Everything needs to grow out of character. But course, I’m preaching for the converted here… [laughs]

Scott: Well, you did that. The story takes place within 24 hours. It’s also contained by another character, which is Los Angeles. You really explore the city. Beverly Hills. Downtown. Venice. Hollywood Hills, so maybe talk a bit about that. You could have chosen to do the thing anywhere. Why Los Angeles?

Stefan: I think because, to me, LA is a city of romance, but it’s also a city of tragedy [laughs]. At least it feels that way to me looking in from the outside. So, the initial choice to set the story in LA wasn’t just because it was an easy first choice. Los Angeles just has this unique combination of glossy hopes for what your life could be, what your love life could be, your career could be. And at the same time, so many people in LA struggle with disappointment, tragedy, failed dreams and aspirations. Which felt true for a loner like Michael. Also, it just felt like the right setting for a story about a young man, who essentially feels invisible. You can’t live an invisible life in Copenhagen. You can in LA. Finally, the city — to me — is in many ways symbolic for the idea that we can all choose and change our identities. Which this story is also very much about. All of this fed into initially choosing LA as the arena. I don’t know. I never lived in LA. I only visited a number of times over the years. It might be a false narrative.

Scott: No, it works. I lived in LA for a long time. You’ve achieved that sense of authenticity. It feels like the place. You’re right. It’s an unusual place. You take away the water, it’s a desert. There is this fantastical quality to Los Angeles. One of the things I thought was so impressive was you really tease the reader. Where are we going with this?

Even from the beginning where he packs up the car. Michael goes to buy this car. He’s asked by the old guy who’s selling the car, “I guess it’s not that far from your own story, sir. I drove one just like this many years ago. It changed my life. I’m just hoping it could change my life again.” You’re not laying out the back‑story in its fullness. You’re just teasing it.

We don’t know whether it’s a positive thing, a negative thing. Let me ask you about that because that’s such a great instinct to just tease the exposition. Really, just make the reader curious. Is that something that’s a natural instinct or something you’re conscious of?

Stefan: Both, I think. To me it’s always a question of, “What is the tension in every moment?” There has to be engaging tension in every single moment. There has to be a constant unbalance to create a lean‑in situation for the audience. That includes constantly teasing with a little bit of what’s ahead, and then change that all the time. Have the audience chasing a carrot somehow.

The moment a scene falls flat, the movie is dead. Really. At least to me. You can never let go of your audience, not for a second, you constantly have to lead and push them. That doesn’t mean you have to scream and shout out every line, but you need dramatic unbalance in every single story beat to keep the audience engaged.

I’m so conscious of this when writing and watching things. It’s all about trying to sustain tension. And especially, to get back to your question, “How do you dole out exposition?” is such a difficult aspect of our craft. I read somewhere a long time ago, I don’t know who originally said it; “Use exposition as ammunition.” Exposition has to be part of the dramatic construct of the scene. If it isn’t, make it.

And then, again, always ground it in character. The fact that Michael does not expose his full back‑story in that opening scene is of course because it’s painful. So, this opening moment just teases that there’s something painful in his past, he doesn’t want to talk about, but he has hopes that this vehicle will somehow help him get over it. Which, in the end, is what the entire movie is about.

So, you put it in there from the opening scene. Because if the key question of the movie is not somehow represented in your opening scene, it’s not your opening scene. As well as your final scene is the one, where the core question is finally resolved. And then you’re out.

How strongly you give away those core questions and answers is a question of style and personal taste. To me, I like deliberately well‑constructed stories. I don’t feel distanced by feeling that I am in the hands of storytellers who have made deliberate and strong choices. I like that. I enjoy that. I enjoy watching films that do that. I aspire to do the same.

Tomorrow in Part 4, Stefan discusses ways in which he subverts expectations in his screenplay Mercury.

For Part 1 of the interview, go here.

Part 2, here.

Stefan is repped by Lit Entertainment Group.

For my interviews with dozens of other Black List writers, go here.