Finally found a copy of the script. Some interesting differences.

So, I ordered a PDF copy of the "Cloak & Dagger" screenplay for $20 at hollywoodscriptshop.com (incidentally, planetmegamall.com also sells a hard copy for $15), even though I was skeptical that these people had gotten their hands on an authentic shooting script for this movie. I half expected to receive a transcription of the finished film that had been passed-off as an actual script, because I've seen that type of junk before. ...Well, they've proven me wrong... The script definitely seems legit, all the way down to the microchip being hidden in a "Donkey Kong" cartridge instead of a Cloak & Dagger 'tape'-- since (as we all undoubtedly know!), Atari's "Agent X" game didn't get retooled into "Cloak & Dagger" for usage in this movie until after Tom Holland's script was already submitted...

Anyway, the version that I have is dated July 1, 1983, and it says “Final Draft,” even though it’s quite a bit different from what they actually filmed. Not to say it's fundamentally different, as the overall plot is easily 99% the same, but I'd estimate that they only used about 20% of the scripted dialogue. The first line in the screenplay that matches what was spoken on camera is “Help, police, murder!”, which must be close to the twenty-minute mark. And just to be clear, we're not talking about subtle differences in word-choice here, but about some pretty major changes to the characters themselves.

For instance, the script is front-loaded with a surprising amount of banter about how Kim hates her mother’s boyfriend, and how she wants Davey's help in setting their parents up on a date. Frankly, I think it was a good decision to scrap this material and (literally) cut to the chase, since this subplot also made for a completely different take on what Davey and Kim are to each other (or, rather, what they might be to each other when they're older). In the script, she's jockeying to become Davey's kid sister, whereas in the movie she quickly shoots down any hint of that idea when her mother innocently asks what Davey's father is like. I'd be interested to hear why the filmmakers pulled such a "180" on this, but I'm guessing it's because the implication of the parents getting together (after the dust settles) just felt like over-reaching. Plus, Henry Thomas and Christina Nigra looked and acted closer in age here than they really were, and so their dynamic never really seemed like that of a big brother / little sister-- more like an old married couple at times, which I always figured was an amusing parallel with the MacCreadys, who are still playing their dubious "spy games" together even into old age...

As for the main characters, Dabney Coleman played Jack Flack pretty much as written, but he played Davey’s dad as a much warmer character than the guy he was on the page. And Henry Thomas portrayed Davey as much less of the hyperactive child he was written to be. Davey’s psychological issues are even more obvious here than in the film, and not in a cute way. In comparison, Thomas somehow made Davey's behavior in the opening scenes seem playful and (mostly) age-appropriate, but the script makes it abundantly clear that Davey's "not all there" and that everybody around him knows it. He also breaks down and cries during a couple of scenes where fans of the film are accustomed to seeing him keep his composure, so even if the script is more realistic in this sense, I'm glad Henry Thomas didn't try to "go there" when it wasn't truly necessary. In fact, it’s not until you read this that you can fully appreciate the sense of underlying maturity that Thomas was able to bring to this role, perhaps thanks to the acting boot-camp he'd recently been put through under Spielberg. Any other child actor would’ve likely played David Osborne exactly as written-- thereby making our suspension-of-disbelief an even tougher sell whenever he’s outsmarting and outmaneuvering all of these cold-blooded (and fairly resourceful) adults.

Granted, I may be giving the actors too much credit, as the choice to give Davey more confidence and smarts of his own (with or without Jack's "help") may have all stemmed from Richard Franklin's directing. However, since this entire project was conceived as a starring vehicle for Henry Thomas (according to interviews with both Holland and Franklin), I'm still thinking the kid was given the leeway to "be himself" whenever he was speaking as Davey, and that he and Coleman consequently did a fair amount of ad-libbing. For example, the scene where the cops take Davey home (after the initial murder) appears to have been totally re-scripted during rehearsals, or possibly improvised on the set. Either way, it has way more heart in the movie than it did on the page-- Davey doesn’t have any respect for his father at all at this point in the script, referring to Hal Osborne as a "wimp" more than once, and you can't really blame him. After reading this, I was thankful they didn’t take it that far in the film, as this additional story arc of "Hal finally earning Davey's respect" wasn't really needed. On screen, the fact that Hal and Davey's relationship was strained, yet never fully dysfunctional, eventually made for a much stronger ending.

Finally, I think the most significant difference between page and screen might serve to clear up a debate that I've seen on these boards before: Namely, "was Jack Flack A) simply an imaginary friend, B) a schizophrenic alter-ego (a la Tyler Durden in "Fight Club"), or C) was he supposed to be something more than either of those, almost like a guardian angel?" After all, in the movie, they blur the line several times, with Jack knowing things that Davey clearly doesn't (such as, "Don't go that way; it's a dead-end!", which seems like strange advice for Davey to imagine and then ignore), plus with the speech about Jack having other playmates in the past (including Davey's father). On the other hand, Jack's parting words to Davey when he claims that he can't do this on his own are, of course, "you were always on your own!" ...Well, for anyone who would rather this paradox not have a definitive resolution, you may want to skip this next paragraph...!

During the scene when Davey kills Rice, Tom Holland makes it explicitly clear that his intention was for Jack to be “real.” In the script, as Davey’s about to be shot, it's literally Jack who gets Rice's attention. Rice then sees Jack as a "ghostlike figure" that is “undeniably there,” which is why he panics and opens fire. Once Jack is down, Rice is said to be "totally confused by the momentary apparition he saw," before telling Davey, "Okay, brat, you're next." ...The movie, of course, makes this much more ambiguous: As filmed, even though Jack is oddly translucent at this point, Rice appears (to most viewers) to be shooting blindly into the clearing only because Davey started talking to “someone” off to his right. ...Ultimately, I’m not sure which version I like better, as they both have their merits... The idea of Jack being quasi-real does serve to eliminate any lingering notion that Davey was suffering from the same type of paranoid schizophrenia as John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind," as some of the more literalist fans of this movie like to suggest. But, unfortunately, it also eliminates the idea that Davey actually got through all of this by using his own wits and imagination. As such, the line "you were always on your own" is not in the script, nor is the memorable line, "I doubt if he ever had the imagination" after Davey tells Jack that Rice could see him. ...At the end of the day, I think the director was smart to leave this up to the viewer. Audiences are free to believe whichever variation works better for them, or to just accept it on its own terms and not let it become a sticking point either way.

Altogether, it was a lot of fun to finally get a glimpse into the creative process of a movie I practically watched on a weekly basis as a kid. I stayed up till four in the morning on a worknight reading it, and I'm sure I'll do it again if I ever get ahold of any of the earlier drafts. The dialogue still needed some work (hence all the changes), but the action and suspense were scripted very, very well. Basically, Holland succeeded in writing a Hitchcock flick for kids, but also in elevating it into one of the better coming-of-age parables of its time. Once again, it made me wish this movie was as well-known today as its contemporaries like "The Goonies," because it truly deserves to be. It's light-years ahead of the more modern entries in its genre like "Spy Kids" or "Agent Cody Banks," as it never pandered or insulted kids' intelligence. Nothing quite like "Cloak & Dagger" has ever been made before or since, and I doubt if it even could be made today without being heavily watered-down.