After all, it is the job of director to break and restructure the plots of story into limited hours or less by using different approaches. He just wanted the story so that he can make his own arrangements to the film’s shots based on it.

Hawks wanted there will be no flashbacks, and Faulkner wrote the screenplay in five days outstandingly without any flashbacks. Maybe Hawks did not want to put any separate shots of memory from past in the continuous motion of the story, maybe it could be for minimizing time of shooting, or for tighten budget and so forth. However, he continued the flow of the story and character development as well without any flashbacks.

A flashback generally does not move the action of the plot forward, instead moving backward to explain or uncover something that has already been established. So, Hawks would not want Faulkner to get caught up in a tangled form of narration if he is looking for a smooth and clear-cut story.

Well based on this it seems as though Hawks wished for Faulkner to focus primarily on the film making process.As mentioned Hawks wanted the story first and the character afterwards. Finally that is when him and Faulkner would focus on adding interesting elements to the film itself. This is understandable in the sense that it would of allowed Faulkner the opportunity to dive and focus into the basics of screenplay writing. Once obtaining good exposure, they could focus on the screenplay . Especially different elements including: structure,length,budget,etc.

Faulkner did not have enough experience to implement flashbacks into the movie. Badly implemented flashbacks can cause confusion to the audience and could be badly received. Hawks probably believed it was the safest approach to filming Today We Live.

In film flashbacks are used to reveal information about the plot or the characters that can’t be revealed any other way. Sometimes the use of flashbacks are unnecessary and can misconstrue the idea of a character. It can give the audience too much knowledge and can make us look at the plot differently.

For this story I think the flashbacks were necessary. The story only made sense being told in a linear fashion focusing on the story line first the characters second just as Hawks wanted. The whole structure of the movie and maybe even the flow of it would have changed if it was in flashback form.

Diana/Joan Crawford would also have played a smaller part if the story was in flashback form. Bogard would have been the character the audience would have followed instead of Diana.

I think its interesting that Hawks said no to flashbacks. Sanctuary was almost filmed in flashback form. Did Faulker have anything to do with the production of that film? or Hawks?

As we are informed from the above passage, no flashbacks seems to be the will of Hawks. I believe a reason for that is the inexperience if Faulkner as a screenwriter

The original story simply didn’t call for flashbacks. All of the exposition for characters was done through dialogue and action.
Same goes for the film adaptation; there was no need to bring exposition through a flashback. Bogard didn’t know Diana before he showed up trying to buy the house, so the flashback would have had to be about their personal lives. That’s lame, especially since we get to know the most essential details of their lives in the first 20 minutes. If Hawks didn’t insist on it, Faulker might have had the idea to write a flashback, but then he would have had to change around the story in order to squeeze it in. This would have either impeded on the story, or would have predisposed Hawks to having another element to include. In his situation then he would have probably skipped over the flashback if it was written, because he would first, as director, need to have a total understanding and vision from the basics of the story. If at that point Hawks envisioned a flashback happening, then he would have included it. He’s no amateur.

Maybe the direction Hawks wanted to take the film was a concise, fast paced story telling. Adding flashback could have disrupted the flow and slowed down the story. There were also time constraints for the film, and overusing flashbacks would have made the film longer.

Simplicity in writing the story was probably the most important aspect of the story telling. I agree with you that this could cause confusion. Also the fact that the “stars” should be the main subject of these film and a complicated script with flashbacks could take away from the overall focus on the star and their ability to drive the film to success.

I agree with what you’re saying. Sometimes flashbacks can misinterpret the story. Flashbacks are supposed to give the audience information that we couldn’t see anywhere else but that could also change the way we view the characters and maybe that’s why hawk wanted no flashbacks.

However, the subject and theme changed so much due to the join of the female character acted by Joan Crawford that the original style of dialogue and speech dominated by male could not match the needs of the new story.

Crawford’s hesitation of being part of an all-male film production was mitigated through her request of insisting Faulkner to write her script in accordance to the clipped speech of her male co-stars. She was possibly also initially concerned with being part of this production since at that time she was considered to be one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. So maybe she wanted to match that persona and title with the projects she did as well. Her role in the film was central to the development and matched with her status as being a huge American star.

Since the scripts of the Crawford’s character was a situation of choice that Crawford has to fall in love with Gary Cooper and also she wanted to keep her promise to Robert Young. So, the Crawford’s character was in dilemma. I assume that it could be one reason as well as it also could be less female actress against more men in the story or Film.

If her dialogue did not match that of the men, then her presence in the film would feel that much more stark. Matching her dialogue would bridge the gap between her and her male costars, perhaps allowing her character to be more than just the love interest, making her a more organic part of the story.

Not wanting to do this movie at all, and then on top of it her character basically didnt exist in the story that the movie was based on. Crawford wanted to fit in and have her dialogues similar to those of her male costars. Also she wanted to show that being the only woman among those men she is quite like them.

I believe Crawford was concerned about the dialogue because her character was not part of the original story. Despite that she had to play almost a central role as a British woman in the movie. In order to blend in the the dialogue of other actors, she insisted on having her dialogue to match the clipped speech of the other male actors.

Crawford was concerned about the dialogue because she was the leading lady in this film and the actors at the time were using clipped dialogue and she did not want them to out shine her.

Why is Crawford considered the only actress in the film? I feel that Applegate played a great role in the film but seems to be looked over. Why was this? Was she not originally cast? Was this another request from Crawford? Just confused a little on this.

I think Joan was concerned because her character was not originally supposed to be in the play and she might not have wanted her character to seem less out of place, therefore asking Faulkner to adjust her dialogue.

Well looking back her character was originally not part of the story let alone having a major presence. Due to the fact that her character was the only female in a full male cast there was some initial concern. Attention drawn through her presence on screen would be maintained by matching her dialogue with the clipped speech used by the male actors. Allowing her to blend in and not have any male actors out shine her through the duration of the film.

Crawford’s thoughts may have been that her character didn’t have as much importance as the men roles without a clipped dialogue.

Crawford probably didn’t want to play a stereotypical female character. Instead of being portrayed as a typical emotional and helpless female she wanted to be taken more seriously. By using clipped speech, her dialogue is on equal playing field with the men.

Claude did not want to go to Torpedo boat, because he loved Diana very much. He was in doubt that if he dies or can’t come back to his lover again. Afterwards he was very excited while going to fly with Bogard, but ultimately he lost his eyesight which is enough to lose her.