Interview (Part 4): Sam Boyer

My interview with the 2022 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner.

Sam Boyer wrote the original screenplay “Ojek” which won a 2022 Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with Sam about his creative background, his award-winning script, the craft of screenwriting, and what winning the Nicholl Award has meant to him.

Today in Part 4 of a 6-part series to run each day through Saturday, Sam discusses the story’s Nemesis figure and how he approached writing the script’s several action scenes.

Scott: One of the interesting things about the script that you do so well is that, first half of act two is on the one hand, he seems to be doing pretty well. He’s making money and he’s got himself a new super‑duper motorcycle. He’s found this girl, but you plant these seeds and you’re like, “No, this is going to go south.” That looming sense of dread.

How conscious were you of that to try and I guess, forestall the ultimate move into dangerous stuff and yet at the same time allow him to at least explore this seemingly positive arc or moment in his life?

Sam: It’s astute of you to observe that. I think that I’ve read almost every screenwriting book out there. I’d encounter some writers were like, “Oh, I don’t read any screenwriting books or writing books. They’ll totally poison your mind with all this. They’ll make your work generic.” I’ve never been above any form of information or help.

I think it’s Blake Snyder’s “Save the Cat!” that talks about delivering the promise of the premise in that second act with the “fun and games” segment. I knew I wanted to bring that very early on. That’s a moment where you can have Gede being this incredible transporter. There’s all this fun and action involved in that.

In earlier iterations of it, it was too much of him transporting someone somewhere and things work out and that’s nice. It’s exciting the first time, but it’s ultimately not very interesting we’ve had those seeds of doubt that you plant. It’s so nice to hear that worked, but it’s one of those things that only happens at least for me in the rewriting and the re‑visitation of it.

Scott: I don’t want to go too far into the plot because it has some wonderful twists and turns and I would encourage people to read the script and hopefully the movie will get made. They’ll be able to see it. I do want to talk about your Nemesis figure, the Australian. Where did this guy come from?

Sam: I think you know that basically there are some of these characters in Jakarta of, someone is depicted solely by their nationality. I wanted a character who could represent this “other.” I like this foreign influence that we don’t even have to give this person a name. They can be identified and kept somewhat vague and keep danger through that.

In my mind, who I’d always pictured was, a Guy Pearce-type. Someone who’s made up of angles, sharp, menacing and able to represent all these foreign controlling interests that drive the illegal trade in Indonesia.

Initially, he was too generic. I ultimately had to give him these deeper relationship ties in the third act so he could, like a good villain, surprise us in some way.

The fact that he speaks fluent Bahasa and he’s much more keyed in on everything than you could possibly expect made him that much more dangerous and that much more interesting. Again, it’s another situation where characters grow in subsequent drafts, but he needed to represent something that was bigger than anything else going on in Jakarta.

One of those chances for a character to expand the scope and then make your protagonists feel that much smaller from the danger they’re in.

Scott: One theme that runs through the story the allure of money. People who don’t have it, people who struggle to make it, people who do have it, people who do whatever to make more of it. In fact, there’s a little short subplot with this guy Irwan, who lives near Gede and is fishing in the stream.

At one point Gede buys him a nice fishing rod, but Irwan persists in using his old rod, and he says, “A fish doesn’t care how much the rod costs or what money you use to buy it.” He reminds me that he’s like a mentor figure in a way, or at least having a mentor moment.

Reminds me of that biblical verse, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” You talk a little about money as a theme or a dynamic in the story?

Sam: Oh yeah. I think in any big city, truly, there’s this universal quest for money because money is like a unit of freedom. In this situation, it’s the one thing that governs everybody.

Everyone wants money. Gede wants/needs money, Leo wants/needs money, Bejo wants/needs money, the Australian does as well. It’s truly the one thing that can get you whatever you want, whatever you need. It can buy you happiness. It can buy you misery. It manages to do both for these characters at different points.

It’s great that you bring up Irwan, because he’s the one character who isn’t guided by money in the entire script. That’s one of the ways in which he exists is the foil. This person who can actually survive in Jakarta.

There’s this moment at the end where he’s fishing. There’s this notion like, could a fish possibly survive in these waters? I remember living in Jakarta, and seeing the canals strewn with trash. There’s no way there’s a single living fish in there.

The truth is you can, but you have to not be governed by the one thing that is the lifeblood of the city. I thought he, in some ways, is the fish at the end, but also the idea that nothing can survive. Nothing that needs water can live here. I don’t know.

I wanted a question at the end of the script that people could go out and get a piece of pie after the movie, and talk about whether something is possible or not. Erwan and his quest for the mythical fish is kind of that.

Scott: That was fun. One last thing I want to talk to you about, because we said this is an action drama story.

A lot of action set pieces in today’s expert driver, and there’s all the ever‑riskier motorcycle escapade. Do you consider yourself an action writer? What did you do to prepare yourself to write these things? Did you read a lot of action scripts? How did you go about doing that? It’s quite evocative and well‑written.

Sam: That’s a really kind question. This is the first action script I’ve written. I don’t know if I’ve ever had more fun writing a script. But I’ve read a lot of scripts that I’d say have great action.

I was an intern at Steven Zaillian’s company for a little while. It left a huge influence on me. I read so many fantastic scripts from so many excellent writers.

Guys like Dennis Lehane, who were able to write scenes that weren’t necessarily action scenes, like they were action scenes. Those little tricks and techniques stick with you. I was subconsciously trying to put some of those onto paper.

I don’t know if this answers your question or not. Truly, you’re learning a little bit from every script you read.

Tomorrow in Part 5, Sam talks about the Nicholl experience and answers some craft questions.

For Part 1 of the interview, go here.

For Part 2, go here.

For Part 3, go here.

Sam is repped by Range Media Partners.

For my interviews with every Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner since 2012, go here.

For my interviews with Black List writers, go here.