a screenplay
by Cherie
When Alejandro awakes to a seemingly deserted world on the brink of an alien invasion, he learns he must save the... more
Cherie
member since 07/02/2006 |
last login 05/09/2012
I wrote fiction, nonfiction, television animation, and comics years ago, and I continued to write after my daughter was born. But by the time she had entered kindergarten, I had quit, slipping so easily into the chores and delights of being a...
Member Participation Level:
0 1 2 3Recent Activity
Bio
I wrote fiction, nonfiction, television animation, and comics years ago, and I continued to write after my daughter was born. But by the time she had entered kindergarten, I had quit, slipping so easily into the chores and delights of being a mom that I didn't even realize I had stopped writing. But now I've begun writing again, and I've really been enjoying TriggerStreet.com.
Submissions by Cherie
Reviews by Cherie 18
-
A review of Love Storyby Cherie on 09/15/2006The opening images are effective and appropriate for a couple in love, and they set the mood well, as does the music; it contributes to the mood without being cloying or overly sentimental. The pacing is good; the length of the film is appropriate for the story you tell. The acting is believable and the dialog realistic. However, at one point, I became aware of how many times... The opening images are effective and appropriate for a couple in love, and they set the mood well, as does the music; it contributes to the mood without being cloying or overly sentimental. The pacing is good; the length of the film is appropriate for the story you tell. The acting is believable and the dialog realistic. However, at one point, I became aware of how many times the man and woman were saying “fuck” or some variation of the word, and this made me wonder if you were going for the Glengarry Glen Ross hyper-realism effect with the swearing or you just wanted to indicate the semi-inarticulate rage people can get into with the ones they love the most. Regardless of your intent, wondering about your choices as a filmmaker brought me out of the movie. However, I was soon drawn in again. In fact, when I went back to watch the film once more to check on the camera placement in the scene where Mike arrives, I found myself watching the whole thing without remembering to check.
What I was looking for was the relationship between camera distance and the psychic distance of the couple: You begin with a tight closeup of the man and woman touching each other and end with a long shot of the couple apart and not touching. The more intense the fight, the more the camera pulls back, which is quite effective. But the scene with Mike is shown entirely in a long shot, and this is less effective. Mike involves himself in the fight, so it seems he ought to be “closer” to the couple, with the final result--the couple separated on the road--being the longest shot of all to represent the consequences of the couple’s actions. (Actually, I feel the funniest ending would be a slow pull back into an aerial extreme long shot showing this couple prostrate in the middle of nowhere, a spoof on the “isolation of humanity in an uncaring world,” but I somehow suspect this is not in your budget.) More helpful, perhaps, is the comment that the first time I viewed the film, I kept expecting something to happen with (or to) the couple as they lay there in the road because the camera seems to hold on them for so long. However, I don’t think this ending should be shortened, but rather it needs some little extra bit to validate what has happened, even if it’s just a longer shot after Mike exits the scene, something to indicate that they are going to stay exactly where they are.
All in all, this was a good job, and I enjoyed seeing this film. I look forward, in fact, to seeing more of your work. read -
A review of Everyday Peopleby Cherie on 09/03/2006You’ve got an interesting plot that held my attention. The pacing felt right. I also enjoyed the diversity of your characters and their individuality, not only in how they responded to gaining super powers, but in how they approached life. For the most part, the dialog sounded like real people talking. Although I had some problems with certain aspects of your script, these... You’ve got an interesting plot that held my attention. The pacing felt right. I also enjoyed the diversity of your characters and their individuality, not only in how they responded to gaining super powers, but in how they approached life. For the most part, the dialog sounded like real people talking. Although I had some problems with certain aspects of your script, these problems all seem like things that can be handled without too much difficulty.
.
I had trouble with the character of Yvonne, and as a result, the character of Peter. Even though Everyday People is essentially a farce, she comes across as too much of a cliché. It also makes her “conversion” at the end too convenient and thus unbelievable. Her treating Peter like a baby--and his mute, passive acceptance of it--makes Peter seem almost mentally retarded; and again, his finally standing up to her seems contrived, given what you’ve shown of his character in the beginning. In my notes on the early part of the script, I said Yvonne was unsympathetic and that I wanted to know more about why she acted the way she did toward Peter. This is even more true when we get to the point of Peter standing up to her. (It also bothered me that Peter was obviously being bullied at school, but Yvonne seemed too insensitive to even notice.) If you plant the seeds of her concern--perhaps she's worried he won't do well in school and his future will be shot--and perhaps even hint that their relationship has changed, that she doesn't treat him like she used to (and he could list a couple of fun things they did together to which she could say he's not a little boy anymore), you would better set up the later change in the way the mother and father treat Peter, and add depth to your script. Without belaboring the point, you would also be showing how her attempts to make Peter stand up and do the right thing were actually having the opposite effect.
.
The dialog in the climatic scene with Peter and his parents is too direct, too pat. He’s a kid who has gone from practically mute to near eloquence in expressing his needs. It would make more sense--and be a lot more effective--if Peter were more halting in his speech. Instead of saying that he was missing love, for instance, he might say something along the lines of missing having someone "care about me and what I do and just...just listen."
.
Some of the plot points didn’t work, and I could see no real reason for them to be written the way they were. For instance, I didn’t see a reason to have the bus stopped at the light, particularly since you seem to be indicating it’s a long wait. The wait seemed contrived, and it came across as being the result of the writer not being sure how to get the people in the right place at the right time. I feel that the bus should be moving. It would make what happens more dramatic--the bus driver trying to see what is going on while everything is happening at once. Perhaps people are shouting, causing even more confusion. Then when the wave comes at the bus, Harry could try to maneuver the bus out of harm's way, instead of sitting there like, well, a sitting duck. Plus, a moving bus is a lot easier to topple than a standing one.
.
Unless I missed something, William getting a luxury flat for saving the young man seems to have solved all his problems. Even if I believed that someone would give away a flat for saving their son, William still would be unemployed, and I doubt if he could afford the upkeep, etc., on a pension or on the dole. Why not have him be a sales person who gets to live on the premises? You've had his power be the power of persuasion and then later, he continues to be persuasive (in talking Windsor's son out of suicide, or even, perhaps, in getting the flat in the first place). He also has the ability to "pass" for well-off; it seems these qualities would make him an excellent salesman.
.
Your explanation of why Victoria is so interested in Harry comes a bit too late; before she says what she’s after, I found myself wondering where she was coming from. I’d also rather “see” her motivation, not be told it directly, even in dialog--unless the dialog took place in the restaurant and it revealed her motivation to treat Harry the way she does. Perhaps you could show her interest in either being on television or getting on television again. I would guess that a big part of what she would get out of being with someone during their "15 minutes of fame" would be bragging rights. I could see her having called all her friends to come to the restaurant so she could essentially show off. Harry might misconstrue her enthusiasm as concern and interest in him, when in fact, the more thrilling his story, the better she looks. This would also better set up Harry’s reaction to Louise’s comment about what her friends would think about her dating a “celebrity.”
.
Maggie acclimated to her new power exceptionally fast. (This is in contrast to Peter who did not think to float up and away from the bullies, even though he had already practiced levitating.) Maggie went from standing in the kitchen looking confused about what had just happened (her picking up the refrigerator) to her using her powers against the bullies. Perhaps you might want to end the kitchen scene with her going over to the refrigerator and trying her powers on it a few times. By the time she finishes, she will know full well what she can do. I'm not bothered by Peter failing to use his powers to escape getting hit--he's been so demoralized--but I would like to have seen his reaction afterwards. I would think he would berate himself for not using his new power--the way people beat themselves up for not saying what they think they should have said at the time. The different reactions (Maggie confronting the bullies, Peter not) would be in character for the people you've established.
.
I felt Peter’s bullies gave up too quickly. I could see the one kid being frightened by the apparition at his window, but the other two were in a different situation. As far as I could tell, they wouldn't have known that Peter wasn't just some jerk in a mask and cloak up in a tree. (Plus they are not alone--each would know the other had seen their reaction.) It would make more sense for them to be furious with Peter and try to get him, but as soon as Peter floated away from the tree, they would realize that he hadn't just climbed up there, and this could freak them out.
.
I like the ending, but I don't like the ending. :-) It's clever, but in some ways, it defeats what you've led up to--four people who found happiness, not through their powers, but through their own actions. It's also extremely coincidental--but that could be a nitpicky complaint for this type of movie. The scene parallels the earlier scene, of course, but just as I wanted that earlier scene to have the characters more actively involved in trying to escape (as opposed to just sitting around for a light to change), this time I'd like them to be less involved. If you're going to make it a coincidence that the chemical plant explodes again, really go for it. Don't have the people get on the bus with the intention of going to the chemical plant to get their powers back; make it purely coincidental that they all are on this bus the second time and heading for a chemical plant that's about to erupt. The one difference you could have would be if in the first scene the passengers were shouting to Harry to get them out of there, this time, they could be shouting for him to get them to the right spot at the right time. In fact, it could be funny if the reader/viewer thinks up until the last second that they are trying to get away. The validation that they were deliberately trying to get into the smoke could be when the smoke engulfs the bus and you cut to black, the audience hears their happy shouts.
.
I’m going to assume that others have pointed out your tendency to misuse “it’s,” the spell-check errors (“whale” for “wail”), the lack of proper punctuation (lots of missing commas and periods), and the formatting flaws, so I will skip all of that. Instead, I will close with the comment that you’ve written a readable script that if reworked properly has the potential to sell.
.
Good luck with it.
.
~*~Cherie~*~
read -
A review of Regular Army (rev)by Cherie on 07/29/2006I enjoyed reading this because I liked the main characters, Lisa and Kelli, so much. Their dilemma was presented in such a way as to be believable and sympathetic, and the ending packed an emotional punch. The scenes in which the goals and emotions of the characters are clear are also quite effective, as for example, when Lisa was regaining her composure in the toilet stall... I enjoyed reading this because I liked the main characters, Lisa and Kelli, so much. Their dilemma was presented in such a way as to be believable and sympathetic, and the ending packed an emotional punch.
The scenes in which the goals and emotions of the characters are clear are also quite effective, as for example, when Lisa was regaining her composure in the toilet stall after her meeting with the homophobic General, and when Kelli was putting the moves on Lisa in the backyard.
However, many of the scenes have a flatness to them because the goals of the people involved, most importantly Lisa, are not clearly presented throughout the screenplay. Almost all of the pieces of the puzzle are there—her impoverished background, her ambition, and thus her desire to not make waves—but they are not written or presented in a way that shows how they drive her actions. It’s almost as if you show all the pieces of the puzzle, but don’t actually put it together to make a picture. A side effect of not knowing Lisa’s goals is that she seems incredibly passive, so much so, that when she does finally leap into action (wanting Kelli and herself to out themselves so that Kelli wouldn’t have to serve in Iraq), the change comes as a shock and seems out of character.
There are various ways to reveal a character’s goals. In the notes I took while reading the script, I commented that the consequences of Lisa chastising the General and outing herself should have been shown onscreen, if only briefly. I then suggested that if something were taken from her—or she had to relinquish it as part of her dishonorable discharge (which I had to guess is what she would have received as punishment)—this something could be symbolic of her original goal, such as advancement in the military. Then the next scene in which she receives the necklace that she gave Kelli would be a symbol of what she had gained by giving up that earlier goal.
You may or may not want to play around with the symbolism of her insignia of rank, but regardless of how you choose to do this, each scene needs to be reviewed with an eye as to how it reveals progress or obstacles in the path toward her goals. How far in the ranks does Lisa want to go? What is her ultimate goal? She must have one; there’s no way she got to where she is in the story by accident nor would her current position be as far as she planned to go. As it is now written, Lisa’s initial reluctance to get involved with Kelli come across simply as not wanted to get caught and thus kicked out of the military. If we knew of her ambitions, then it wouldn’t just be a matter of getting kicked out, but also of not getting to where she was heading.
This would also make the dilemma more universal—it’s not a matter of just keeping your head down so as not to get kicked out of the military, it’s also a matter of being true to yourself. Lisa’s dilemma then is not just getting caught; it’s how does she remain true to her original goal (assuming it is advancement in the military) and at the same time, have a true and committed relationship with someone else. You also need to make the goals of the other characters clear, even if the goals are only short-term, such as in one of the opening scenes, where you have three soldiers pull up to a bar and wait outside for a soldier, any soldier, to come out so they can beat him up. Through dialog, you indicate that the one soldier is angry with his sergeant who is perceived as being gay, but it’s not clear if they purposely came to that particular bar to track him down or if they chose the bar just because they think it’s a gay bar. (And although the characters believe it is a gay bar, it is not shown definitely to the reader/viewer of the script to be true).
This script does suffer a bit from the reader/viewer not knowing exactly when something is happening with respect to another. Is the scene taking place right after an earlier scene, or is it days later? Or is it the same day? For instance, you have David come to a hotel, but it’s not clear exactly why he’s there (the Ball? If so, when is the Ball going to happen? That night? The next day? When?), then Lisa and company have field exercises, then finally the Ball takes place. The events don’t seem connected in time. This “disconnection” increases the sense that each scene is isolated and doesn’t always relate to what has come before it or is about to come, and thus it increases the “flatness” overall.
It’s difficult for any writer to gauge the impact their words will have on the reader/viewer, and so they often try and build tension either by intercutting scenes or by withholding information in the mistaken belief that it builds tension. It doesn’t. What builds tension is making the viewer wonder what’s going to happen now that X has been revealed. For example, you have a “cheat” in one of your opening scenes that serves no real purpose and you intercut the scenes at the two clubs in a way that weakens your script. You introduce Lisa and David in a club, then cut to a scene at another bar and introduce Todd and his gang and indicate they are going to beat up so soldier, presumably for being in a gay bar, then you cut back to Lisa and David and indicate that both of them are looking for people to hook up with when they spot Nicole, then you cut to Todd et al. spotting their target and heading for him, then you cut back to Lisa and David and we learn that Lisa is the one interested in Nicole (and only then do we see that they are in a club with “same sex couples” dancing—by this point the audience will feel that this was a cheat), and finally we go back to the outside scene with the attacking soldiers and the fight actually takes place.
This opening would be so much stronger if you were to skip the opening scene with Lisa and David and start with them at the table in the bar and spotting Nicole. I would suggest that you establish that Lisa is in the military and is just about to take her new position at this point (something you seem to hide until later—another cheat). You could then go to Todd and his buddies and end that scene with them about to attack Jason who they think is gay. Back to Lisa, we see that she is attracted to Nicole, that she is in fact gay (and now, showing the same-sex couples dancing would validate what the viewer has learned about Lisa), and you could end with the gay soldier getting bashed. (I’d also start the next scene with Lisa being called into the General’s office because that is sufficient to establish everything that you did in the previous scenes--that she’s an officer, that there is rampant homophobia in the military, and that she is ambitious, intelligent, and motivated—plus it would tie in the threads you’ve already started to weave with the gay bashing and Lisa being gay. You can have the meeting with Kelli after this; it would be as effective if not more so than the way it’s written now.)
I hope you continue with this script. It has a lot to offer and is an interesting story. I wish you the best of luck with it. read
Write a Comment
Submissions by Cherie
-
a screenplay by CherieWhen Alejandro awakes to a seemingly deserted world on the brink of an alien invasion, he learns he must save the... more
Reviews by Cherie 18
-
A review of Love Storyby Cherie on 09/15/2006The opening images are effective and appropriate for a couple in love, and they set the mood well, as does the music; it contributes to the mood without being cloying or overly sentimental. The pacing is good; the length of the film is appropriate for the story you tell. The acting is believable and the dialog realistic. However, at one point, I became aware of how many times... The opening images are effective and appropriate for a couple in love, and they set the mood well, as does the music; it contributes to the mood without being cloying or overly sentimental. The pacing is good; the length of the film is appropriate for the story you tell. The acting is believable and the dialog realistic. However, at one point, I became aware of how many times the man and woman were saying “fuck” or some variation of the word, and this made me wonder if you were going for the Glengarry Glen Ross hyper-realism effect with the swearing or you just wanted to indicate the semi-inarticulate rage people can get into with the ones they love the most. Regardless of your intent, wondering about your choices as a filmmaker brought me out of the movie. However, I was soon drawn in again. In fact, when I went back to watch the film once more to check on the camera placement in the scene where Mike arrives, I found myself watching the whole thing without remembering to check.
What I was looking for was the relationship between camera distance and the psychic distance of the couple: You begin with a tight closeup of the man and woman touching each other and end with a long shot of the couple apart and not touching. The more intense the fight, the more the camera pulls back, which is quite effective. But the scene with Mike is shown entirely in a long shot, and this is less effective. Mike involves himself in the fight, so it seems he ought to be “closer” to the couple, with the final result--the couple separated on the road--being the longest shot of all to represent the consequences of the couple’s actions. (Actually, I feel the funniest ending would be a slow pull back into an aerial extreme long shot showing this couple prostrate in the middle of nowhere, a spoof on the “isolation of humanity in an uncaring world,” but I somehow suspect this is not in your budget.) More helpful, perhaps, is the comment that the first time I viewed the film, I kept expecting something to happen with (or to) the couple as they lay there in the road because the camera seems to hold on them for so long. However, I don’t think this ending should be shortened, but rather it needs some little extra bit to validate what has happened, even if it’s just a longer shot after Mike exits the scene, something to indicate that they are going to stay exactly where they are.
All in all, this was a good job, and I enjoyed seeing this film. I look forward, in fact, to seeing more of your work. read -
A review of Everyday Peopleby Cherie on 09/03/2006You’ve got an interesting plot that held my attention. The pacing felt right. I also enjoyed the diversity of your characters and their individuality, not only in how they responded to gaining super powers, but in how they approached life. For the most part, the dialog sounded like real people talking. Although I had some problems with certain aspects of your script, these... You’ve got an interesting plot that held my attention. The pacing felt right. I also enjoyed the diversity of your characters and their individuality, not only in how they responded to gaining super powers, but in how they approached life. For the most part, the dialog sounded like real people talking. Although I had some problems with certain aspects of your script, these problems all seem like things that can be handled without too much difficulty.
.
I had trouble with the character of Yvonne, and as a result, the character of Peter. Even though Everyday People is essentially a farce, she comes across as too much of a cliché. It also makes her “conversion” at the end too convenient and thus unbelievable. Her treating Peter like a baby--and his mute, passive acceptance of it--makes Peter seem almost mentally retarded; and again, his finally standing up to her seems contrived, given what you’ve shown of his character in the beginning. In my notes on the early part of the script, I said Yvonne was unsympathetic and that I wanted to know more about why she acted the way she did toward Peter. This is even more true when we get to the point of Peter standing up to her. (It also bothered me that Peter was obviously being bullied at school, but Yvonne seemed too insensitive to even notice.) If you plant the seeds of her concern--perhaps she's worried he won't do well in school and his future will be shot--and perhaps even hint that their relationship has changed, that she doesn't treat him like she used to (and he could list a couple of fun things they did together to which she could say he's not a little boy anymore), you would better set up the later change in the way the mother and father treat Peter, and add depth to your script. Without belaboring the point, you would also be showing how her attempts to make Peter stand up and do the right thing were actually having the opposite effect.
.
The dialog in the climatic scene with Peter and his parents is too direct, too pat. He’s a kid who has gone from practically mute to near eloquence in expressing his needs. It would make more sense--and be a lot more effective--if Peter were more halting in his speech. Instead of saying that he was missing love, for instance, he might say something along the lines of missing having someone "care about me and what I do and just...just listen."
.
Some of the plot points didn’t work, and I could see no real reason for them to be written the way they were. For instance, I didn’t see a reason to have the bus stopped at the light, particularly since you seem to be indicating it’s a long wait. The wait seemed contrived, and it came across as being the result of the writer not being sure how to get the people in the right place at the right time. I feel that the bus should be moving. It would make what happens more dramatic--the bus driver trying to see what is going on while everything is happening at once. Perhaps people are shouting, causing even more confusion. Then when the wave comes at the bus, Harry could try to maneuver the bus out of harm's way, instead of sitting there like, well, a sitting duck. Plus, a moving bus is a lot easier to topple than a standing one.
.
Unless I missed something, William getting a luxury flat for saving the young man seems to have solved all his problems. Even if I believed that someone would give away a flat for saving their son, William still would be unemployed, and I doubt if he could afford the upkeep, etc., on a pension or on the dole. Why not have him be a sales person who gets to live on the premises? You've had his power be the power of persuasion and then later, he continues to be persuasive (in talking Windsor's son out of suicide, or even, perhaps, in getting the flat in the first place). He also has the ability to "pass" for well-off; it seems these qualities would make him an excellent salesman.
.
Your explanation of why Victoria is so interested in Harry comes a bit too late; before she says what she’s after, I found myself wondering where she was coming from. I’d also rather “see” her motivation, not be told it directly, even in dialog--unless the dialog took place in the restaurant and it revealed her motivation to treat Harry the way she does. Perhaps you could show her interest in either being on television or getting on television again. I would guess that a big part of what she would get out of being with someone during their "15 minutes of fame" would be bragging rights. I could see her having called all her friends to come to the restaurant so she could essentially show off. Harry might misconstrue her enthusiasm as concern and interest in him, when in fact, the more thrilling his story, the better she looks. This would also better set up Harry’s reaction to Louise’s comment about what her friends would think about her dating a “celebrity.”
.
Maggie acclimated to her new power exceptionally fast. (This is in contrast to Peter who did not think to float up and away from the bullies, even though he had already practiced levitating.) Maggie went from standing in the kitchen looking confused about what had just happened (her picking up the refrigerator) to her using her powers against the bullies. Perhaps you might want to end the kitchen scene with her going over to the refrigerator and trying her powers on it a few times. By the time she finishes, she will know full well what she can do. I'm not bothered by Peter failing to use his powers to escape getting hit--he's been so demoralized--but I would like to have seen his reaction afterwards. I would think he would berate himself for not using his new power--the way people beat themselves up for not saying what they think they should have said at the time. The different reactions (Maggie confronting the bullies, Peter not) would be in character for the people you've established.
.
I felt Peter’s bullies gave up too quickly. I could see the one kid being frightened by the apparition at his window, but the other two were in a different situation. As far as I could tell, they wouldn't have known that Peter wasn't just some jerk in a mask and cloak up in a tree. (Plus they are not alone--each would know the other had seen their reaction.) It would make more sense for them to be furious with Peter and try to get him, but as soon as Peter floated away from the tree, they would realize that he hadn't just climbed up there, and this could freak them out.
.
I like the ending, but I don't like the ending. :-) It's clever, but in some ways, it defeats what you've led up to--four people who found happiness, not through their powers, but through their own actions. It's also extremely coincidental--but that could be a nitpicky complaint for this type of movie. The scene parallels the earlier scene, of course, but just as I wanted that earlier scene to have the characters more actively involved in trying to escape (as opposed to just sitting around for a light to change), this time I'd like them to be less involved. If you're going to make it a coincidence that the chemical plant explodes again, really go for it. Don't have the people get on the bus with the intention of going to the chemical plant to get their powers back; make it purely coincidental that they all are on this bus the second time and heading for a chemical plant that's about to erupt. The one difference you could have would be if in the first scene the passengers were shouting to Harry to get them out of there, this time, they could be shouting for him to get them to the right spot at the right time. In fact, it could be funny if the reader/viewer thinks up until the last second that they are trying to get away. The validation that they were deliberately trying to get into the smoke could be when the smoke engulfs the bus and you cut to black, the audience hears their happy shouts.
.
I’m going to assume that others have pointed out your tendency to misuse “it’s,” the spell-check errors (“whale” for “wail”), the lack of proper punctuation (lots of missing commas and periods), and the formatting flaws, so I will skip all of that. Instead, I will close with the comment that you’ve written a readable script that if reworked properly has the potential to sell.
.
Good luck with it.
.
~*~Cherie~*~
read -
A review of Regular Army (rev)by Cherie on 07/29/2006I enjoyed reading this because I liked the main characters, Lisa and Kelli, so much. Their dilemma was presented in such a way as to be believable and sympathetic, and the ending packed an emotional punch. The scenes in which the goals and emotions of the characters are clear are also quite effective, as for example, when Lisa was regaining her composure in the toilet stall... I enjoyed reading this because I liked the main characters, Lisa and Kelli, so much. Their dilemma was presented in such a way as to be believable and sympathetic, and the ending packed an emotional punch.
The scenes in which the goals and emotions of the characters are clear are also quite effective, as for example, when Lisa was regaining her composure in the toilet stall after her meeting with the homophobic General, and when Kelli was putting the moves on Lisa in the backyard.
However, many of the scenes have a flatness to them because the goals of the people involved, most importantly Lisa, are not clearly presented throughout the screenplay. Almost all of the pieces of the puzzle are there—her impoverished background, her ambition, and thus her desire to not make waves—but they are not written or presented in a way that shows how they drive her actions. It’s almost as if you show all the pieces of the puzzle, but don’t actually put it together to make a picture. A side effect of not knowing Lisa’s goals is that she seems incredibly passive, so much so, that when she does finally leap into action (wanting Kelli and herself to out themselves so that Kelli wouldn’t have to serve in Iraq), the change comes as a shock and seems out of character.
There are various ways to reveal a character’s goals. In the notes I took while reading the script, I commented that the consequences of Lisa chastising the General and outing herself should have been shown onscreen, if only briefly. I then suggested that if something were taken from her—or she had to relinquish it as part of her dishonorable discharge (which I had to guess is what she would have received as punishment)—this something could be symbolic of her original goal, such as advancement in the military. Then the next scene in which she receives the necklace that she gave Kelli would be a symbol of what she had gained by giving up that earlier goal.
You may or may not want to play around with the symbolism of her insignia of rank, but regardless of how you choose to do this, each scene needs to be reviewed with an eye as to how it reveals progress or obstacles in the path toward her goals. How far in the ranks does Lisa want to go? What is her ultimate goal? She must have one; there’s no way she got to where she is in the story by accident nor would her current position be as far as she planned to go. As it is now written, Lisa’s initial reluctance to get involved with Kelli come across simply as not wanted to get caught and thus kicked out of the military. If we knew of her ambitions, then it wouldn’t just be a matter of getting kicked out, but also of not getting to where she was heading.
This would also make the dilemma more universal—it’s not a matter of just keeping your head down so as not to get kicked out of the military, it’s also a matter of being true to yourself. Lisa’s dilemma then is not just getting caught; it’s how does she remain true to her original goal (assuming it is advancement in the military) and at the same time, have a true and committed relationship with someone else. You also need to make the goals of the other characters clear, even if the goals are only short-term, such as in one of the opening scenes, where you have three soldiers pull up to a bar and wait outside for a soldier, any soldier, to come out so they can beat him up. Through dialog, you indicate that the one soldier is angry with his sergeant who is perceived as being gay, but it’s not clear if they purposely came to that particular bar to track him down or if they chose the bar just because they think it’s a gay bar. (And although the characters believe it is a gay bar, it is not shown definitely to the reader/viewer of the script to be true).
This script does suffer a bit from the reader/viewer not knowing exactly when something is happening with respect to another. Is the scene taking place right after an earlier scene, or is it days later? Or is it the same day? For instance, you have David come to a hotel, but it’s not clear exactly why he’s there (the Ball? If so, when is the Ball going to happen? That night? The next day? When?), then Lisa and company have field exercises, then finally the Ball takes place. The events don’t seem connected in time. This “disconnection” increases the sense that each scene is isolated and doesn’t always relate to what has come before it or is about to come, and thus it increases the “flatness” overall.
It’s difficult for any writer to gauge the impact their words will have on the reader/viewer, and so they often try and build tension either by intercutting scenes or by withholding information in the mistaken belief that it builds tension. It doesn’t. What builds tension is making the viewer wonder what’s going to happen now that X has been revealed. For example, you have a “cheat” in one of your opening scenes that serves no real purpose and you intercut the scenes at the two clubs in a way that weakens your script. You introduce Lisa and David in a club, then cut to a scene at another bar and introduce Todd and his gang and indicate they are going to beat up so soldier, presumably for being in a gay bar, then you cut back to Lisa and David and indicate that both of them are looking for people to hook up with when they spot Nicole, then you cut to Todd et al. spotting their target and heading for him, then you cut back to Lisa and David and we learn that Lisa is the one interested in Nicole (and only then do we see that they are in a club with “same sex couples” dancing—by this point the audience will feel that this was a cheat), and finally we go back to the outside scene with the attacking soldiers and the fight actually takes place.
This opening would be so much stronger if you were to skip the opening scene with Lisa and David and start with them at the table in the bar and spotting Nicole. I would suggest that you establish that Lisa is in the military and is just about to take her new position at this point (something you seem to hide until later—another cheat). You could then go to Todd and his buddies and end that scene with them about to attack Jason who they think is gay. Back to Lisa, we see that she is attracted to Nicole, that she is in fact gay (and now, showing the same-sex couples dancing would validate what the viewer has learned about Lisa), and you could end with the gay soldier getting bashed. (I’d also start the next scene with Lisa being called into the General’s office because that is sufficient to establish everything that you did in the previous scenes--that she’s an officer, that there is rampant homophobia in the military, and that she is ambitious, intelligent, and motivated—plus it would tie in the threads you’ve already started to weave with the gay bashing and Lisa being gay. You can have the meeting with Kelli after this; it would be as effective if not more so than the way it’s written now.)
I hope you continue with this script. It has a lot to offer and is an interesting story. I wish you the best of luck with it. read -
A review of Notes in Timeby Cherie on 07/24/2006This is an interesting story with characters and goals with which we can sympathize. Although time travel is an old idea, the use of a piano and music for that end is innovative. Because a film has only sight and sound to convey a story, the use of music is particularly suitable. However, this script does not read like a film, but rather like a young adult novel. The dialog... This is an interesting story with characters and goals with which we can sympathize. Although time travel is an old idea, the use of a piano and music for that end is innovative. Because a film has only sight and sound to convey a story, the use of music is particularly suitable.
However, this script does not read like a film, but rather like a young adult novel. The dialog is formatted as for a script, and some of the locations are called out in slug lines (e.g., INT. WINTER PALACE...), but there are huge blocks of text that are essentially prose passages containing exposition, internal thoughts, and multiple changes in location.
As you probably know, one page of script equals approximately one minute of film. Using your first page as an example, this would mean that by the time we reach the end of the page, 60 seconds should have gone by. You are describing far more action than that.
Three things can be done to fix this:
1—Cut all unnecessary actions. For example, you write "The man walks up to the window and looks outside." If you were just to cut to the window with him at it, the viewer/reader would understand that he has walked there.
2—Make sure each different setting has its own slug line. For example, you write "Soldiers are trying to protect the palace gates...." This should be something like "EXT. WINTER PALACE - PALACE GATES." It can be confusing as to what constitutes a different location, but if you think about how a movie is filmed, you will realize that the location of your first scene (the room in the palace) is probably going to be either a set and the windows fake—they wouldn’t look out on anything—or a "stand-in" location and anything (another building, a freeway, a swimming pool) could be on the other side of the window. Therefore, the scene with the gate being overrun would be another set or location. This would be true even if some producer decided to recreate the Winter Palace for your film; they’d still have to light each place separately: the room, the exterior gate, and later, the corridor, the stairs, the rooftop, and "the scene below." Therefore, each of those locations should have its own slug line each and every time you show something happening there.
3—Break up the action by giving each action its own paragraph. Essentially what you would be doing is breaking down the action into its component parts: First they do this (first paragraph), then they do this (next paragraph), and then...(third paragraph). Related to this is adding a line here and there of the characters’ reaction to things. This fills out the page so that you really are only writing 60 seconds of action (or dialog) per page.
Anther thing you should consider doing is eliminating the flashbacks. You're using them to tell backstory, but that isn't necessary if handled properly. Taking what happens from Page 3 to Page 10 for instance, if you were to show Peter and Michael getting ready for the funeral, most of the information in those flashbacks could be revealed in just a few lines of dialog over the action. Peter: "We proposed to each other at the same time, your mum and me. Did you know that?" Michael: "Yeah, I did." Peter (smiling): "We were so much in love—her sitting on the sofa in that dreadful student bedsit—and me just waiting for her to finish that sandwich so I could ask her." Michael: "I miss her so much, Dad." Peter: "Yes, well...(beat)...we'd best be going. We've got a long day ahead of us." Michael: "Do I really have to go to the funeral?" Peter similes sadly and indicates the door: "I feel the same way, Michael. I feel the same way." Then at the funeral, you could have the vicar, or whoever is presiding over the funeral, say a few words over the grave, this mostly to establish/confirm that the person being buried, Sophie, is the wife and mother of Peter and Michael, respectively. After the funeral, the manner of Sophie's death and how sudden it was could easily be handled in a couple more lines, perhaps as Peter is tending to the guests. People tend to talk about these sorts of things at funerals ("I was so shocked last time I saw her. Six months ago, the picture of health, and then at the Bla-Bla Street market two weeks ago...well, I was simply shocked."), and I could see Peter trying to avoid overhearing all of this, and failing. It would make Michael's "escape" to the garden (Page 9) a logical consequence of what was going on inside.
Another important reason for eliminating flashbacks is because the story deals with time travel. With flashbacks and time travel, it can get incredibly confusing as to when and where events are taking place.
After you have done all of the above, assuming that you want this to be a script and not a novel, you will probably find that the scenes, and thus the script, runs too long. At this point, it will help you to go over every scene and ask yourself what can be cut or tightened. For instance, on Page 34, you have a really long bit of dialog by the teacher Mr. Brown and another one that goes from the bottom of Page 36 to the top of Page 38. Seemingly, the only purpose to this entire scene is to set up Michael’s “need” to use the piano/time travel device. Since the really interesting parts occur when Michael actually uses the piano to go into the past, these types of scenes (where you are setting up some future action) need to be eliminated when possible or at the very least whittled down drastically.
By the way, at times you seem to be withholding information (or else assuming the reader/viewer will know what you mean). Always reveal everything as it comes up. For instance, as soon as you show the piano when Peter and Michael go to look at it (Page 17), you need to state up front that this is the same piano we saw used as a portal to the Winter Palace in the opening scene. And in that same scene, we need to know that this is the same man we saw, even if the viewer doesn’t. In other words, call the Old Man in the opening scene Malacek from the very beginning, and again in the later scenes (starting on Page 87), and whatever you do, don’t call him Robert in one place and Mr. Malacek in another, particularly when calling out dialog.
This may be just me writing your story for you, but I would have liked there to have been more of a sense of purpose to Malacek (the Old Man) trying to bring someone into the future and thus creating a greater sense of loss when it doesn’t work. For instance, what if he were Russian and trying to bring his daughter into the future so she doesn’t get killed in the Revolution, but she then disintegrates into dust. We don’t have to know their relationship, just that it means so much to him and he failed. A major reason for me suggesting this is that you have a lot of scenes that don’t seem to go anywhere. They may be interesting in their own right, but they don’t move the story forward. For instance, on Page 59, you introduce a couple of letters from Sophie, but these don’t advance the story. They do get Peter up from the piano, but this could be accomplished in a way that would be more than utilitarian. As I mentioned earlier, your script will be really long if it were put in standard format, so everything you write has to do more than one thing. Really good scenes advance the plot, reveal character, and set up what is to follow. As it stands now, the introduction of the letters, particularly since you have Peter suggest that Michael read them in private, sets up the expectation that these letters will have an important part to play in the rest of the scripts. This, of course, doesn’t happen.
One last thing that applies, regardless of whether you wish to continue with this as a script or as a work of prose fiction, is to make sure that Michael’s goals are clear throughout. As written now, a lot of what he does seems a bit random and arbitrary. The concept of him using the piano for trivial things is good, but I’d like to have there be some sort of change (an event) that triggers his desire to accomplish what he does in the end. This may not be anything like what you want to do with this story, but I will offer it as an example. What if Michael is using the piano as a way to escape the present. Perhaps his father is falling apart even more than you show him doing, and it’s more than Michael can handle under the circumstances. A history assignment may have triggered the first time-travel trip, but after that, it could be simple escapism. Then some event—something that happens with his father and/or Kevin—could make him see what he is doing and how limited (and selfish) it is. For instance, you have him take Kevin along, and Kevin’s really shaken by the events that occurred, but you don’t seem to capitalize on this. Perhaps Michael was withdrawing from his friends and, angry over being “forced” into having Kevin spend the night, he puts Kevin in jeopardy by taking him to another time without thinking of the consequences. Afterwards, it could create a rift between the friends. A possible triggering event could be when his father comes to Michael’s rescue and saves him from the Aztecs. (And it would be good to establish that while Michael thinks the piano’s abilities are a deep dark secret, the father could know more than he lets on—this way, when he goes to rescue Michael, his climbing into the portal doesn’t come out of left field.) And seeing the selflessness of his father could inspire him to b read
Comments About Cherie 1
-
**DELETED ACCOUNT** on 10/18/2008
Very interesting review of Banshee. Some critiques I find valid, but most of them don't address the story I wrote.
Is Ivor rich? Probably not. Does not need to be. Should I have presaged the china cabinet? I don't think so. Should any author make a list of what's in the house of the protagonist? There are instances where it is necessary, but many, MANY people have china cabinets. It could have been a bookcase or entertainment center that fell on him. I think it would be perfectly anal and boring to make a list of objects you'd find in nine out of ten homes people like Ivor own.
Would he be influential with the local law if he was so rotten and mean? Yes. One inspiration for Ivor was one of the meanest souls one can imagine-though he was not a killer-and he was in tight with the law around those parts.
Think about it from his viewpoint, and mine as the writer...He would HAVE to be tight with the sheriff in order to get away with his occasional sojourns into murder. Or do you think he killed a kid every Halloween? I don't think so.
I started off the story and described events the way I wanted to. Ivor lacks redeeming qualities, but he's hardly one-dimensional. Just because he's mean to his cats and children doesn't mean at all that there's nobody he likes. It's funny...IF I started Banshee off with so-so events-Ivor stubbed his toe and Taps meowed like she was laughing, the rest of the story would make little sense and readers would be on that like hogs at the trough...and I wouldn't blame them.
For you, the intensity was the same throughout the story, with no rest for the wicked. Your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree with that conclusion.
Why was the writing on that mirror? Let us think a bit here...Yes...It fits in with Sherman's personality, as is shown by his banter earlier with Ivor. And he wanted to let Ivor in on the secret, and, since people like Ivor call their local law enforcement officers for almost any reason, it fits that Sherman would let the sheriff know the story, so Ivor would hear the truth from someone he respected. And, it was done out of respect for the readers. Otherwise, how would the sheriff have known the score? Whether ivor died four years earlier or four days earlier, why would he think he was talking to a ghost, unless he knew the events?
While your criticisms are valid in some respects, the solutions presented would work fine for a story you would be writing on a similar plot. I said what I wanted to say with Banshee, the way I wanted to say it. Some readers will like it, some love it, and some hate it. No matter how I write...or how you write, or how Rowling writes, or how Shakespeare writes--fill in the blanks--SOMEBODY will not like it. My solution? Write it the way I want, see if it works for me, change the things that don't, then let it loose and start another story or painting or whatever. Doing art any other way, for an artist/writer/whatever, like me is foolish. I would not know what to write etc. and produce anything anyone would want to look at twice.
I do tend to repeat words where even I don't want them repeated. It's something I'm always fighting against and I've gotten better since Banshee, which is something like twenty stories back in time. As I said, a cogent review, with many things for me to think about if I ever re-write Banshee. If I take your advice-and the advice of several other reviewers, the re-written story will have a completely different flavor. Maybe a better flavor. Will I want to do that?
No.
I will write many more stories. The critiques will be used or discarded as I see fit, but the critiques have helped me learn to be more watchful. I will write my own tales, however, just as my reviewers should write their own stories.
Thanks for the review!
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About Cherie 1
**DELETED ACCOUNT** on 10/18/2008
Is Ivor rich? Probably not. Does not need to be. Should I have presaged the china cabinet? I don't think so. Should any author make a list of what's in the house of the protagonist? There are instances where it is necessary, but many, MANY people have china cabinets. It could have been a bookcase or entertainment center that fell on him. I think it would be perfectly anal and boring to make a list of objects you'd find in nine out of ten homes people like Ivor own.
Would he be influential with the local law if he was so rotten and mean? Yes. One inspiration for Ivor was one of the meanest souls one can imagine-though he was not a killer-and he was in tight with the law around those parts.
Think about it from his viewpoint, and mine as the writer...He would HAVE to be tight with the sheriff in order to get away with his occasional sojourns into murder. Or do you think he killed a kid every Halloween? I don't think so.
I started off the story and described events the way I wanted to. Ivor lacks redeeming qualities, but he's hardly one-dimensional. Just because he's mean to his cats and children doesn't mean at all that there's nobody he likes. It's funny...IF I started Banshee off with so-so events-Ivor stubbed his toe and Taps meowed like she was laughing, the rest of the story would make little sense and readers would be on that like hogs at the trough...and I wouldn't blame them.
For you, the intensity was the same throughout the story, with no rest for the wicked. Your opinion and you're entitled to it. I disagree with that conclusion.
Why was the writing on that mirror? Let us think a bit here...Yes...It fits in with Sherman's personality, as is shown by his banter earlier with Ivor. And he wanted to let Ivor in on the secret, and, since people like Ivor call their local law enforcement officers for almost any reason, it fits that Sherman would let the sheriff know the story, so Ivor would hear the truth from someone he respected. And, it was done out of respect for the readers. Otherwise, how would the sheriff have known the score? Whether ivor died four years earlier or four days earlier, why would he think he was talking to a ghost, unless he knew the events?
While your criticisms are valid in some respects, the solutions presented would work fine for a story you would be writing on a similar plot. I said what I wanted to say with Banshee, the way I wanted to say it. Some readers will like it, some love it, and some hate it. No matter how I write...or how you write, or how Rowling writes, or how Shakespeare writes--fill in the blanks--SOMEBODY will not like it. My solution? Write it the way I want, see if it works for me, change the things that don't, then let it loose and start another story or painting or whatever. Doing art any other way, for an artist/writer/whatever, like me is foolish. I would not know what to write etc. and produce anything anyone would want to look at twice.
I do tend to repeat words where even I don't want them repeated. It's something I'm always fighting against and I've gotten better since Banshee, which is something like twenty stories back in time. As I said, a cogent review, with many things for me to think about if I ever re-write Banshee. If I take your advice-and the advice of several other reviewers, the re-written story will have a completely different flavor. Maybe a better flavor. Will I want to do that?
No.
I will write many more stories. The critiques will be used or discarded as I see fit, but the critiques have helped me learn to be more watchful. I will write my own tales, however, just as my reviewers should write their own stories.
Thanks for the review!