Reviews of The Sun the Blood and the Sand 3

• 
  Review of The Sun the Blood and the Sand
  A review of The Sun the Blood and the Sand
  by AlCielo on 06/27/2012
  Combining Dante and Leone is a gutsy choice, but not necessarily a futile one (filming the Inferno would be another matter). The Inferno is first and foremost a quest / journey (un cammin) and the spaghetti western protagonists normally undertake a quest. Both Dante and Leone present a larger-than-life world (but one that depicts our own with accuracy and restraint). In this... Combining Dante and Leone is a gutsy choice, but not necessarily a futile one (filming the Inferno would be another matter). The Inferno is first and foremost a quest / journey (un cammin) and the spaghetti western protagonists normally undertake a quest. Both Dante and Leone present a larger-than-life world (but one that depicts our own with accuracy and restraint).
  
  In this draft, however, the Dante background doesn't illuminate the spaghetti storyline, (and vice versa, for that matter). I'm dividing this dual critique (Dante/Leone) into Structure and Character.
  
  STRUCTURE
  The Inferno starts with a simple enough structure (9 concentric circles and an antechamber) but then shreds the simplicity to show the illogic / disorderliness that sin wreaks on an orderly universe. One circle (Limbo) isn't for sin at all (you reflect this in the famous cowboy bar). The remaining 8 circles depict 7 sins divided into two categories--Incontinence and Malice (again you follow this with Fort Dis for lower hell). You tend to reflect the messiness of the Inferno, but without its clear analysis of the seven deadly sins (the movie Se7en did a better job)--I had a difficult time deciding who everyone except Lust, Gluttony and Avarice were, though I think the Indian was Wrath.
  
  Leone's categories tend to be somewhat simpler (though they get more complex in his later films)--Good vs. Bad, or Good-Bad-Ugly. There was no psychological advantage for the 7 categories of villains, other than providing each with a different personality. The Magnificent Seven / Seven Samurai, on the other hand, use individuation to present different facets of heroism (not sin of course).
  
  Structurally, this draft seems to me a hodgepodge. If you have to choose between simple and complex, simple is almost always the better choice for a film story. I'd recommend one goal (for Virgil to get Dante to Beatrice, as in the Inferno) and seven opponents (like the repeated antagonists in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), without, if possible, the numerous flashbacks (flashbacks are valid if they're hooked into theme, but here you use them simply for exposition).
  
  CHARACTER
  The Divine Comedy depicts perhaps the ultimate character arc--not only does the protagonist go from lost to saved (and reunited with his love, who represents this beatitude), but he learns so much that he writes a 100-canto poem about his experience. Even Virgil has an arc--he becomes more aware of his own insufficiency (which reflects the poet's contention that reason alone is necessary but insufficient as a guide to revelation).
  
  Arcs are more common in later Leone, but they're never a bad idea as long as they're organic. Unfortunately there's no arc, no inner story in your script. Yes, James Bond does not arc, but Dante the character (both your protag and the "hero" of the Divine Comedy) is NOT James Bond. Dante starts off as a fallible everyman--that's how both audiences connect with him. But even though you symbolically dispense with Virgil at the end of your story (reflecting Virgil's disappearance at the end of the Purgatorio), he pretty much calls the shots (except for Dante's piloting the train (Geryon--not Greyon), which is not a psychological development but a symbolic substitute. If you look at how Dante the protag of the Inferno reacts to sinners as they interact, you'll see a most definite change. The one exception seems to be Virgil's sliding down the hill with Dante (which you echo on p. 106). But the symbolism here is that Virgil--normally Reason--must act instinctively after he's been deceived by the rational-seeming devils. In your script, there's no resonance with character growth (of either Virgil or Dante), just a parallel action.
  
  In short, I'd recommend making your script as simple and archetypal as possible on the plot level but as detailed and analytical as possible on the character level (the old saying "Simple stories, complex characters" is even more important for film stories than for literary allegories. Think like Dante but write like Kurosawa.
  
  Two negatives: The grammatical errors are very distracting and sometimes unintentionally humorous--not a good thing in a cerebral script. The action descriptions are often more detailed than what anyone but a set director would need, and frequently there's no payoff for the details (e.g. the forest on p. 103 is a reflection of the Wood of Suicides in the Inferno, but there's no connection to Dante's attempted suicide at the beginning of the script--the forest in the script simply provides some atmosphere that's unconnected to action or theme). Many of the action paragraphs could be trimmed by 50% or more.
  
  Some positives: I like Virgil's Clint Eastwood dialog--you've nailed the cadence and sarcasm. The ending was positive in a Hollywood way but faithful to the theme (if not the symbolism) of the Divine Comedy. Those action paragraphs I mentioned earlier represent visual thinking, an asset for any writer.
  
  Any work is a journey, and a draft is but one step of that pilgrimage, but you've started well and with persistence and diligence you can end your journey at the paradise of your choosing. Best wishes for the trip. read
• 
  Not yet up to snuff
  A review of The Sun the Blood and the Sand
  by westcoastchris on 08/17/2011
  For some of his films, Sergio Leone spent up to a decade working on the scripts, assigning many different screenwriters in the process, until he got it perfectly right. Apart from the the many grammar and spelling mistakes, which are not important but annoying all the same, there are certain things in the script that should be avoided, like directing the camera, descriptions... For some of his films, Sergio Leone spent up to a decade working on the scripts, assigning many different screenwriters in the process, until he got it perfectly right.
  
  Apart from the the many grammar and spelling mistakes, which are not important but annoying all the same, there are certain things in the script that should be avoided, like directing the camera, descriptions that are not possible to put on film, and suggesting music.
  
  If the script is supposed to be a spoof of the Italian westerns, notably "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", it really needs to be more fun. If it is a homage, then there should really be more to it than just borrowing ideas.
  
  Sure, the first 10 or 15 minutes of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" had no dialogue, but lengthy descriptions are no longer a thing an aspiring screenwriter should try to get way with. In this script, there is way too much black.
  
  I personally dislike voice over, always think it's a poor way to tell a story, though films have been made in which it works well, those in which it's a choice of style, consciously made.
  
  It is good trying to flesh out the characters, but they still feel somewhat cutout from cardboard, and unfortunately are being killed off before they can start to do something interesting. read
• 
  Damn sand gets into everything...
  A review of The Sun the Blood and the Sand
  by Gordon Gekko on 08/16/2011
  Please excuse the note form review. I just find it the easiest way. This is another one of those scripts that is handicapped right from the get-go with a slew of spelling and grammatical errors. Which again is too bad, because the story has merit. I will not be pointing out all the spelling mistakes here (perhaps you should hire an editor) but one recurring mistake was this... Please excuse the note form review. I just find it the easiest way.
  
  This is another one of those scripts that is handicapped right from the get-go with a slew of spelling and grammatical errors. Which again is too bad, because the story has merit.
  
  I will not be pointing out all the spelling mistakes here (perhaps you should hire an editor) but one recurring mistake was this one: the misspelling of the word consciousness – conciseness is of course a word but is used incorrectly in each of the contexts you used it in.
  
  Much of the grammatical difficulty is with syntax - subject verb agreement - reminiscent of the last script I reviewed actually. Is there an epidemic on triggerstreet or what? At any rate, these incessant mistakes create a huge barrier for me; I am too distracted to enjoy what I am reading and instead only passively read because this script has been assigned to me. Which again is too bad, because I think there are elements within your story that are very worthy of a reader’s full attention.
  
  I enjoyed many of your descriptions, but truth be known there were just too many descriptions. At times I wondered if I would ever see dialogue again, the descriptions were so long and drawn out. There is no balance at all between dialogue and description in your script and frankly, there needs to be. When a script is heavily weighted in favor of description it can be quite a slog to read, but also the story becomes very unidimensional which is tantamount to script poison in my opinion.
  
  Also, I found many of your descriptions to be quite incongruous with the dialogue and incongruous with the period piece you were writing. Some examples:
  
  DOMINGO
  But what most don’t know
  is that he left behind an
  apprentice, in fact better
  than an apprentice he left
  a son...A son who knew
  his fathers work very well...
  
  Followed by this piece of description:
  
  Domingo’s grin grows like he’s the Grinch as he calls for his men outside the church.
  
  Here’s another distracting line of description:
  
  Clyde spies the gambling tables and takes off like a kid let loose at Disneyland.
  
  We’re in the middle of a Western period piece here: I just don’t think this is any place for a Disney reference. But like I said, that is just me, I’m sure there will be those who disagree.
  
  
  And another:
  
  He becomes trapped down the out house hole with his arms and legs sticking out like he’s Whiney the Pooh.
  
  I liked the six of diamonds card shooting scene on page 44. That was well done.
  
  Take a look at this sentence:
  The flesh around is mouth is scared and destroyed leaving his teeth and gum’s mostly exposed to the open air.
  There are three mistakes in it alone and I could make an argument for a comma after destroyed too, but in any event this kind of performance will not get your script read anytime soon. I know I am sounding harsh, but that is the reality of the business.
  
  Good description:
  
  Al leads the charge as the gang fires wildly on Dante and Virgil who are just barley out of range. The gattling gun opens on the two, unleashing a rhythmic hell into the air.
  
  Bad description:
  
  Tries to wiggle away…like a worm in the dirt.
  
  A simile once in a while I think is fine in a screenplay but a script can’t be riddled with them as yours is. Similes and other figures of speech are the stuff of novels and short stories; they are better left out of screenplays because they are fluff and take up space. Furthermore a director is going to be able to surmise that someone that is wriggling away is probably wriggling away like a worm and will be able to pass that direction along to the actor quite nicely without a reminder from the script. Just my two cents worth.
  
  The story itself obviously has a lot of conflict and that is usually a good thing but I think with this one there wasn’t enough structure to the conflict; it just seemed to come and go as it pleased with little rhyme or reason for it. It was certainly action packed, no question about it but I think it lacked a defined structure, which I think was to its detriment.
  
  In conclusion, I liked your concept and the story itself was quite good in many ways, I just think it was hampered by too many mechanical difficulties. Fixing the spelling and grammatical errors has to be the first order of priority, followed by a paring down of the action descriptions and a beefing up of the dialogue. This is only my opinion of course, but I suspect others would agree with me on this point. Your script could be vastly improved with this simple advice: more dialogue, less description.
  
  Good luck with your script in the future. read