On "Slave"
I want to commend you off the bat, because it's unusual to read a script so structurally sound. However, with that said, it's never impossible to be critical and I'll do my best.
I'll start with a small detail, but an important one. I want to put forward an argument for you to change the name of "Lesbos". There are a few reasons for this - Firstly, I've heard it before on the British sitcom Coupling (which I believe was horribly butchered in America) and secondly it's too jokey. It breaks the tone of the film, which up until this point doesn't crack gags. By using the term "Lesbos" in this situation you're harming your story more than serving it. Trust me on this. What's more, it's not going to get a laugh because the audience isn't primed for it. Instead you're pulling us out of the story and undercutting the authenticity of the culture on the island.
Next up. "Nigger Whore". P.14. I've been thinking over this long and hard. When I first read the line in the script I couldn't help but stop reading, skip over to my note pad and write "Whoa! Where did that come from?". However, having finished the story and had time to let it sink in, I do understand why it's used. I get the need to make both cultures seem as damaging as each other and lets face it, this character exists to get killed off. Nonetheless, something still doesn't sit right with me and I think it's because of what I'm going to call the "Whoa!" factor. The line is so abrupt, so sudden and unexpected in the script that it really hit me. Up until this point, I don't think there has been any racism really expressed. I understand that we are in the past and that it's bubbling under the surface, but because this is the very first real instance and because it's so raw I feel like it's too shocking. Also, there's no way in hell this would get past a censor, not as it is. I think if you're going to do it, either tone it down or give us stepping stones so it's not so plain shocking when it happens. It's okay for characters to be racist, but only if we already hate them. In this case, sure he's called a woman a whore in the past but he's been on the end of a lot of hardship and that somewhat balances out our empathy to him.
So those are my two specifics. Now I want to tackle structure like i think an employed script reader might. I've been looking over a few reports lately and the thing which strikes me is just how damn critical they are when it comes to a certain few details. As I've said, I think your structure is very strong; everything is tied together very professionally, but I can't help but wonder if they would comment your protagonists motivations in the opening war scene. For what reason would he choose to be a war photographer and why would he have such a positive demeanour about it? I understand from his dialogue at the end that he thinks it's pointless, but his body language is positively chipper and lines like "Lovely weather, isn't it" don't help that.
Also, on page 84 Brady says "Then why haven't you tried to run? You're a coward. Just like me". I don't buy this speech because you've shown that his motivation for not running isn't cowardice, but loyalty.
I think that's the best I can do when it comes to criticising here. I took some notes whilst reading, but they're very minimal. It's nice to see a blue star I fully agree with.
NOTES:
P.4 - You mention Sammy is too weakened to do anything then in the parenthesis you say he speaks weakly.
P.8 - I don't like the word "erasing" in this context.
P.9 - A silent eulogy? A eulogy is a speech is it not?
P.14 - "Nigger Whore" comes suddenly and I feel that it's too hard for me. I get that his but I have to think that the term "nigger whore" would get cut if it were ever to get put on the screen anyway. Especially as it's so abrupt.
P.87 - "Your daughter?" (ditch the line, we don't need it because the last time we cut from this scene it ended on the same line)
Other Reviews by samnorton
18
-
This script ambles along, but it does so quite nicely. I felt like you stuck to the fundamentals and did them pretty well. So often screenplays are lacking a problem for the characters to be driven by and you do well not to fall into that trap. Also, I like how small you make that problem. Ultimately this is a film about 2 kids trying to complete a single page creative writing...
This script ambles along, but it does so quite nicely. I felt like you stuck to the fundamentals and did them pretty well. So often screenplays are lacking a problem for the characters to be driven by and you do well not to fall into that trap. Also, I like how small you make that problem. Ultimately this is a film about 2 kids trying to complete a single page creative writing project. That's what drives the story forward and allows you to explore bigger ideas.
Normally I like to latch onto a few small specific problems with the scripts I am reviewing and go into detail about them. Typically I deal in structure, but I don't think this you've given me much chance to do that here. The subplot with the Grandpa nicely compliments the main story and the story is pretty tight. Although I suppose there is an argument that you don't have other subplots doing similar jobs. We get occasional scenes which hint to a bigger picture, but I don't see mini-narratives that are running at the same time.
For example, Mrs. Combs comes home to get flustered about grandpa disappearing as well as the 2 boys, but there is no consequence of this. The threat that the boys are going to get in trouble for disappearing never turns into anything.
Likewise, Craig and The Old Woman appear and disappear pretty quickly. I understand the need to do this as the characters continue on their journey, but I almost wonder if the story would be work better with a subplots which have beginnings, middles and ends rather than little scenes which directly comment on the main story.
Having said this, I think I may be being picky as the Grandpa's subplot does this job well. Also, the classroom is a good way too bookend the adventure.
Next up, I'm not sure that I am overly passionate about the referencing to The Wizard of Oz. I may have missed the point, but I can't entirely see how it bolsters the story. Instead it feels slightly external to it. This is perhaps the one part of the story where I felt like it began to lag and if I had to cut something, it would be this. I simply think that with a story of this kind, with the small scale and slow pacing that you need to be lean. It wouldn't hurt to be coming in ten pages shorter.
I fear you'll disagree considering it even made the title, but alas I've said it now.
That's pretty much all I have to say. Anything else is nitpicking. For example, I wonder if the boys are maybe a little too crude for their age, although I'm sure it's something you've taken time to consider.
All in all I think it's a nice little script, although you might run into some people who argue that it's more suited to the small screen than the big one.
Here are the notes I took whilst reading:
You missed a bracket after Hakeen's name on page 1.
P.6 - Upstairs - one word
P.6 channel swims sounds weird. In Britain people swim the channel so maybe that's why. I've always heard it as "channel surf" though.
P.14 - James's dialogue should be (V.O.) OR (O.S.) as well as Grandpa's.
P.31 - even if heaven exits. (exists)
P.99 - "buy your kid an ipod". It's fine, but I'd groan if this was made and I saw it in a cinema because it screams of product placement.
read
-
I want to begin this review by saying that I have had very limited experience with religion. I went to a Christian primary school simply because it was the closest one, and I know very little about Judaism.
I think that's an important thing to state because it very much affects the way I approach the script. Comedy is fifty percent in the audience's willingness to accept it...
I want to begin this review by saying that I have had very limited experience with religion. I went to a Christian primary school simply because it was the closest one, and I know very little about Judaism.
I think that's an important thing to state because it very much affects the way I approach the script. Comedy is fifty percent in the audience's willingness to accept it. In this regard, I was always distanced from the subject matter which meant that I generally approached any humour from a formalistic perspective.
On this front, I don't think the script is entirely successful. There are jokes which to me don't feel linguistically sound. Now, naturally my criticism is going to be cold and technical, which you may choose the ignore, but I don't entirely feel like the structure of some of the jokes works. I'll give an example:
Page 70 - the leg pinching skit. The setup is that the dad can't feel the pinch on the outside of his leg so Aiden should pinch the inside instead.
Now I don't know about you, but logically it seems that if I'm sitting next to someone and I need to signal them, then it would be a lot easier to tap on the side of their body than pinch the inside of their thigh.
This is even more true if that person is my dad.
So right off that bat that distances me - If it's not natural behaviour then it's contrived and if it's contrived it's reducing the impact of the payoff.
So what happens next?
Not only does someone sits between Aiden and his father, but his father helps him slide in between them (why?) and Aiden doesn't even notice the guy sitting down.
Now, again, I don't know how you see the scene, but in my head Aiden has to be sat pretty close to his dad to be able to reach him in the first place. That means for his dad to offer the guy to sit between them is odd at the best of times, and in this instance it's even stranger because he's counting on his son's help.
So that's one problem, then there's the second problem of Aiden not noticing, which to me is another cheat. It's not natural again, just like when sitcoms add laughter tracks to help the show along.
That's basically my criticism of the humour. I think the same comments apply across a fair few of the scenes. You don't always play by the rules and the payoffs suffer because of it.
Next up, structure: The film reads pretty solidly like a romantic comedy. The couple get together around the right time, then break up again at the right moment before working things out. It's not especially surprising, but genre films aren't supposed to be right? My main issue with the structure comes from the dad. I don't think he got closure because he didn't end up in a relationship and from your setup, he should have.
Here's why:
1) He shows an interest in the woman at the church.
2) He got his son to try and help him get with her.
3) He showed regret about what happened with his wife.
I think that either you have to ditch the suggestion he's looking for something or add a conclusion where he gets it or he doesn't. Right now, the suggestion is there but there's no conclusion. That's a problem.
Oh and on point 1. I think Norbit proved that fat jokes are officially unacceptable. They're not witty, they're just mean and I don't think yours disprove that. The justification I would give to removing them is that I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the casting director who has to find a poor woman to have abuse thrown at her about her weight.
If I'm coming across strong, I apologise. The truth of the matter is that in every one of my criticisms I can picture tons of existing film or tv show which are also guilty of doing the same things. Ultimately though, I think as writers we should always be striving to improve and I feel that if you tightened up a few key things in your joke telling, then coupled those results with your strong understanding of how stories work, you'd be onto something so much bigger than this script is.
I hope some of this has been helpful and remember, I'm looking at things strictly from the head, rather than the heart.
read
-
From the outset, I was warm to the script, yet I wasn't completely sold. I don't think there is anything that you should change in these early scenes, I just feel that with these kinds of stories an audience member is always going to accept them as "good" rather than "great" until they are prompted to stop observing and start engaging with the characters.
It's not like a Hollywood...
From the outset, I was warm to the script, yet I wasn't completely sold. I don't think there is anything that you should change in these early scenes, I just feel that with these kinds of stories an audience member is always going to accept them as "good" rather than "great" until they are prompted to stop observing and start engaging with the characters.
It's not like a Hollywood film. You can't open on a massive effect, or a side-splitting scene and instead you have to weave the web until the audience is caught with a subtle payoff.
In the case of Exile, I think you achieve this well.
Structure is just as important to independent / foreign cinema as it is to the most commercial films, it just works in different ways. So whilst I didn't read your script and think "okay, so here's the pinch moment", I didn't need to. At every moment I understood exactly where I was in the story, how I got there and where I was expecting to go.
In essence, I am trying to stress that if in other reviews you have been criticised on structure then I think you need to outright ignore those comments. This story has an really strong structure which is full of nicely worked setups / payoffs which constantly help to draw the audience in.
The dollar bill incidentally, is very nicely done.
On the negative, this screenplay is probably not indicative of the actual run time of the finished film. I don't think there's much fat on it though and where there are extra details, I understand why you might include them. Notes such as (Tito's) "face turned to the warmth of the sun" become practical when locations and shoot times are being arranged.
Ultimately, I would say that the only reason that you might want to cut down the page count is because I'm sure a few people have seen to big "119" and hit "remove assignment" right away. It's wrong. It shouldn't be done, but my logic is that if screenwriters do it, you better believe financiers do too.
The other point I have is that I found myself surprised by the immigration laws. I'm in no-way familiar with the proceedings, but I'm used to the idea that getting to a country isn't enough to gain residence, at least not permanently.
I'm sure you have done your research and the fact that it's presented through the eyes of a child helps (because it also explains it to the audience) but it is an element which momuntarily distracts at the ending. However, with that said, the moment is soon washed over by the closure found with the bill and I think that ultimately you have written the inherant exposition around immigration law with minimal damage.
I can say more, but everything I have is positive so it's not going to be much use. Your characters are well drawn and the dialogue is strong (I'm assuming that it's spoken in Spanish. It really ought to be). Overall it's a great script and I hope that in the not too distant future I'll see it in my local cinema.
read
+ more reviews
