Interview (Part 5): Sam Boyer

My interview with 2023 Black List writer for his script Foragers.

In 2022, Sam Boyer received a Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting for his original screenplay “Ojek”. In 2023, his script “Foragers” made the annual Black List. Quite an accomplishment in back to back years. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with Sam about his Nicholl experience, writing the script which eventually made the Black List, and writing in the action genre space.

Today in Part 5 of a 6-part series to run each day this week, Sam discusses some key plot choices he made and how his affection for screenwriter William Goldman influences his approach to screenplay style and Narrative Voice.

Scott: I want to talk to you about a choice you made that was born of two characters, Juno and Andi, hitting a boiling point where basically, the simmering differences between how they’re dealing with their grief at the midpoint of the story erupts into this argument.

It’s a character‑driven thing, but from a writing standpoint, narrative standpoint, by splitting them up, it’s great because now you got the two storylines you can cross cut back and forth.

The fact that it was driven by the characters, that you didn’t see the hand of the writer there saying, “Oh, I’m just going to split them up because I want to have two stories” Maybe, could you talk a bit about how that emerged, that pivotal moment.

Sam: Thank you. That’s very kind what you said. I’m so glad you didn’t see the hand of that.

I knew that with the internal journey that Juno was going through and the visions that she was suffering from, early on in plotting or imagining what might happen, I thought, “Oh, man, what she needs to see is what happens if she runs into her son or someone who looks just like him, how does she deal with that? What happens when this is manifested in the corporeal form?”

It created this natural midpoint of this division between the two of them, of Juno thinking she’s got everything she wants now and Andi not being convinced. It’s everything that that red herring, in a sense, did in that point, that allowed two characters who were dealing with an event differently to finally clash and argue.

I knew that I wanted to separate them, too, because I think they needed to both go on their separate journeys. When you have a team together, there’s often a point where, “What happens when they’re taken apart?” For them to grow the most on this journey, they both needed to move through it separately.

It’s really the device and the strength of Juno’s grief and then that weird plot point that made all of that relatively efficient and easy to do.

Scott: The choice that Maria would be teamed up with Andi ‑‑ teamed up just from a narrative standpoint ‑‑ versus Juno, maybe you could unpack that a little bit.

Sam: I had a choice of two directions to take it, of one of them actually finds the lost child, and the other one experiences almost the opposite, this total deflating defeat of thinking they found their kid and not getting it.

At that point in the journey, it made Juno the only option for Lucas in that case. Then the benefit of these separate journeys is for Juno, it’s learning to reconcile that loss after feeling it in a really physical, real way. Then under the wing of John Day who’s the mirror of what Juno could become. She became totally hard‑boiled and disillusioned. She could wield her power in a way that could wreak havoc, but it could be all be under her control.

Then, for Maria, Andi’s vulnerability made her the easiest person to open up to over the course of that so we can learn more about Maria in real time. Those two characters just seemed like natural fits of those partners better.

Scott: I want to talk to you about one final aspect of the script that’s quite consistent and interesting. That’s what I call Narrative Voice, basically as exhibited in scene description.

There’s a moment at the very end, this is scene description, you could probably guess how the rest of this goes, but, “Before the crime scene, the yellow tape, and the likely cover‑up, through the skylights, among the broken things, over the lost boys, searching mothers and discovered daughters, dawn breaks like it always does, letting some light in.”

It’s like this wonderful moment here with the reader. In fact, there’s even a point early on where you said, “Note, this isn’t a movie where a man dies every six seconds. When there’s a fight, Juno and Andi are tested. Often hurt. Things move fast. They have to because two middle‑aged women can’t outlast bigger, stronger, younger, opponents. Only outthink and outmaneuver.”

It reminded me of that moment of the script, Logan.

Sam: Yeah.

Scott: Out of it. Right?

Sam: It’s totally inspired by that. If I couldn’t editorialize and have fun, flavorful description, then I would not be doing this. It is totally what I love to do. It’s what I enjoy. At this stage in my life and career, I do write for the reader.

Before these things end up on screen, and exist as almost these technical blueprints and documents, you are writing to connect with and woo a person who might not have any reason to be on your side of the story. I want to make them feel something as I write this, and for them to feel like they are in interesting and capable hands as they experience a story.

There’s this totally fine balance of what is enough voice to keep things fun and interesting, and then what is so much that it actually bothers the reader, or it feels unclear and you’re not actually telling the story anymore and you’re not letting action work, or you’re telling instead of showing.

I, in recent years, have been trying to be more judicious with how I apply it because I have so much fun doing it, and it can be such a blast.

I try to earn those moments, like the end of that climactic scene, where I’m like, “OK, we’ve been through a lot. There’s been a ton of action. I feel the reader, at this point, knows what’s about to come. Why am I not just telling them? Why can’t we just communicate with each other?” We’ve almost earned this dialogue with each other.

Scott: As you were saying, you’re writing for the reader. You’ve got to get people excited about the story for it to have any chance, whatsoever, of getting set up and moving forward. I agree with you 100 percent. It speaks again to the importance of reading professional scripts by professional writers, particularly contemporary writers, just to see how they do that.

Sam: There’s no better education someone visiting the site right now could obtain beyond reading scripts from some of your favorite movies and writers. Especially, like you said, ones from the last 15 years are so hugely beneficial because they are so different from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which is one of my favorites ever.

Tomorrow in Part 6, Sam answers some questions about his take on the craft of screenwriting.

For Part 1 of the interview, go here.

Part 2, go here.

Part 3, go here.

Part 4, go here.

To read my 2022 interview with Sam about his Nicholl-winning screenplay “Ojek,” go here.

Sam is repped by Rain Media Partners.

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