a screenplay
by TheKeenGuy
A gun-shy underling in a hitman organization must fight to survive a bloody power struggle.
TheKeenGuy
member since 11/10/2002 |
last login 03/13/2013
I'm Patrick C. Taylor. I have written seventeen screenplays and a television pilot working solo, with co-writers and as a script doctor. Winner - Triggerstreet Screenplay of the Month (November 2009) Top 15% - 2010 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting Competition Top 10%...
Bio
I'm Patrick C. Taylor. I have written seventeen screenplays
and a television pilot working solo, with co-writers and as
a script doctor.
Winner - Triggerstreet Screenplay of the Month (November
2009)
Top 15% - 2010 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting
Competition
Top 10% - 2010 Austin Screenplay Competition
Quarterfinalist - 2010 Champion Screenwriting
Competition
Top 25 Finalist - 2010 ScriptShadow Screenplay
Contest
Top 100 - Project Greenlight 3
Submissions by TheKeenGuy
-
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyHis flight from LA to NYC canceled on 9/11, an Arab hitman must travel across the country to complete a job.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyA gun-shy underling in a hitman organization must fight to survive a bloody power struggle.
Reviews by TheKeenGuy 56
-
A review of Kindnessby TheKeenGuy on 11/20/2010I'll start by reviewing each short, and then give my overall thoughts on the anthology at the end... "PASS IT ON" BY DOMINIC JENKINSON (DOMINIC.JENKINSON) Similar to those "And I don't know, is this the part where I let go..." commercials (I don't remember for what, because I always fast-forward the moment I hear that obnoxious song). Also reminds me of a story from the... I'll start by reviewing each short, and then give my overall thoughts on the anthology at the end...
"PASS IT ON" BY DOMINIC JENKINSON (DOMINIC.JENKINSON)
Similar to those "And I don't know, is this the part where I let go..." commercials (I don't remember for what, because I always fast-forward the moment I hear that obnoxious song). Also reminds me of a story from the documentary THE BRIDGE in which, unfortunately, the jumper did not receive that life-saving smile.
A nice idea, that the "pay it forward" cycle he initiates saves his own life. It gets at the idea of how acts of kindness that are not directly reciprocated can still create a better world overall.
However, the voice-over was too vague for us to truly understand this character's mindset. Perhaps you felt that specificity would make this less relatable, but without understanding the nature of his suicidal tendencies, the notion that the smile would save him does not resonate. Maybe it's just prolonging the inevitable. Maybe he just guilty of suicide ideation. Who knows.
As a result, the whole thing comes off as a contrivance, as if the power of a smile can help anyone overcome any such hardship, even curing severe suicidal depression. That is, if the act didn't merely prolong the inevitable, or if the guy wasn't simply guilty of suicide ideation; both scenarios that would undercut your message.
I did love the crossword puzzle element, though. That helped make for a great anthology opener.
"WHAT DID YOU DO TODAY?" BY (GEORGE SAND)
Sweet story. One thing, though... I was confused about the combat scenario that you created
Given the current conflict in Afghanistan where the US military is working in conjunction with the Afghan military, I was thrown off by the fact that it seems you have an American soldier in combat AGAINST the Afghani military rather than in conjunction with them. I mean, I assume that's what it is, as opposed to some convoluted and unexplained scenario in which either the US soldier or the Afghan soldiers have gone rogue.
That hiccup interrupted the emotional journey for me a little, because it wasn't until Zoey's story created the parallel that I understood what the parallel was supposed to be, which is an effective one once realized.
"PROTOCOLS" BY CARL SALMINEN (GAMEARS)
I was quite taken by this piece, as it gets at the heart of an issue I understand completely. The inability to reason with computers on an emotional level, when emotion can be a necessary component. The computer's inability to comprehend the "please" was an emotional climax of great deftness. Excellent work.
A few little glitches. You give one age for the daughter in the action lines and another age in dialogue. It's only clear that "Bingham's daughter dissipates" means that she's teleported as a result of Bingham's reaction. Of course, those don't affect the story at all, just otherwise captivating reading experience.
Overall, I think this is the most effective, genuinely heart-rending and original piece in the anthology.
"LITTLE BIT" BY PCA (GIMMEABREAK)
I wrote a short a couple years ago similar to this, about a cat being put down, and I certainly understand the emotion behind it.
I think this short is a bit bumpy. The nonlinear narrative serves the small purpose of quickly setting up the lie, that Bonnie is pretending to detest a cat she's secretly caring for, but the same thing could have been accomplished chronologically, and the reveal comes so quickly that it's not as if it has any added resonance in this nonlinear form.
The act of kindness is virtually incidental and without much consequence. I have no idea why you held back the reveal that the cat was being taken in to be put down. Not only does it strain credulity, but minimizes Bonnie's most substantial act of kindness to simply saying "What can I do?" and then the cat is immediately sedated. If she learned that at the shelter, and carried through with it, comforting the cat in her final hour despite Bonnie's previous sentiment that she "doesn't do death," I think it would have been more resonant.
"STRANGERS IN THE NIGHT" BY JEREMY LALONDE (JEREMY)
You've successfully condensed the second act of LEAP YEAR into about 6 pages, and then you end it on this weird moment that is likely to confuse people (more in keeping with the ending of David Mamet's HOMICIDE).
I think the idea is that "Bert" simply gave her someone else's business card out of his wallet, because he does not wish for a reward for his actions... the same reason that he hasn't arrived in order to do the humpy-humpy with her, and probably never will. It's not really an act of kindness if he had that kind of ulterior motive as she suspected, right?
But I think many people have been conditioned by thrillers to suddenly take a moment like that and think "Oh my goodness, this guy isn't who he says he is! Did he pickpocket her purse to give it back to her? Is he planning something dastardly? QUICK, LADY, SNEAK OUT THE WINDOW BEFORE HE AXES YOU TO DEATH!" I doubt you intended that kind of ambiguity.
"THE DECISION" BY LAURA DEERFIELD (POTNIATHERON)
I felt this was an unfocused, overly busy effort. It's as though you were trying to cram a feature length narrative into a short, and the result is sort of a Cliff Notes version of THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS.
By the second page, within half a page, you introduce characters 3 through 10 by name, and it's nearly impossible to keep that straight without rereading and revisiting those introductions. The relationships are fuzzy, where it seems like they were developed with complexity before writing, but only hinted at within the actual dialogue.
By the time you have Ron doing a strip tease, it's comes across merely as bizarre, and the next scenes don't have time to recover into dramatic territory. Seven pages just isn't enough to shoehorn in all this material and still tell a dramatically resonant story.
"NORMA AND BUZZ" BY MIKE DANIEL (DEVELOPEXEC)
The "EXT. INFANT'S MOUTH" should be cut. Jumps the gun and isn't accurate. There's also a couple typos in there. it's = its, buy = by
As for the story, pretty charming, but overlong. The bus was your climax, and Norma and Buzz were happy together watching the sunset. FADE OUT there and I think it would have been entirely satisfactory.
The whole thing with Charlie just made the story feel like it was plodding along for no reason. The description of the children "long grown and gone" and the husband "long dead" are lazy. You didn't communicate those facts in the visuals, so its of no use to tell the reader that. And the way that Buzz controls Charlie from within his ear is highly derivative of RATATOUILLE, as any kid would tell you (although they might not use the phrase "highly derivative").
Overall, quite pleasant, but know when to get out while the getting's good.
"BREAKING AND ENTERING" BY MIRIAM PASCHAL (MIRIAMP)
This one, on the other hand, feels a little too brief. It's two quite unkind people who trade off acts of kindness. It's one after the other, so it's not quid pro quo, but still this feels like it doesn't go far enough in making any kind of point.
There's very little conflict that's mined between these two characters. As soon as they are confronted with the dilemma of whether or not to help each other, they both do the right thing with very little deliberation.
There's a point to be made there that people who are generally unkind can still have a breaking point where they will instinctively do what's right, but that's not driven home effectively at the moment. Perhaps it involves each character needing to really sacrifice something in their act of kindness, rather than just coming to form a mutually beneficial relationship, a truce born more out of necessity than kindness.
"COLORED PEOPLE" BY (CHRISTOPHER M. POWERS)
This premise is pretty much the same as HAROLD AND THE PURPLE CRAYON, so no points for originality on the concept. But you do create a nice set-up for this with the characters and their situation, and it's pretty charming all the way through.
I think it could have been a little stronger to have created a little more consequence to the actions and created more of an arc towards Stefy using this to do good things, but the sequences of discovery doesn't feel false the way it is now. Stefy's innocent and charming, and this doesn't require her to start off as a flawed protagonist.
So, on the whole, pretty well done.
"THE ANONYMOUS MR. FINNLEY" BY BRIAN C. SIMERL (YBU)
First of all, there's not a whole lot of dialogue (especially in the first half), but what dialogue there is is stilted, on-the-nose and often unnecessary. On the other hand, you occasionally tell is things in the action lines before they are effectively communicated on-screen, such as identifying Mr. Finnley and Mr. Giller by name, while the viewing audience could merely infer that the recipient of the fruit basket was Mr. Giller.
But the major flaw is the absurd naivete that a basket full of money left on the front step for the Rodriguez family would somehow solve their problems. Perhaps this is merely the faulty thinking of Mr. Finnley rather than the author, although the reaction of the Rodriguezes as written gives me the impression that this IS supposed to be seen as the cure to what ails them.
Furthermore, it doesn't even fit at all with the simple gesture that he provides to Mr. Giller that Mr. Finnley's approach towards helping the Rodriguez family is such a misguided and ineffective lavish donation. It's both a misjudgment and overreaction.
It doesn't matter that you had Mara arguing with her husband about the lack of money. The scenario you set up of an extremely young mother of three released from prison reentering that home is not one that you can realistically just throw money at to solve the problem. Not only that, but you then repeat the beat by having him donate the rest of his fortunes to another couple in financial straits, making the Rodriguez story nearly superfluous.
That element feels totally false and off-putting, and undermines the entire effort, which is disappointing, because I think there's the germ of something really interesting here, building on that idea of someone going to extreme (almost pathological) lengths to keep their role as a benefactor anonymous.
Instead, we get a quite corny and melodramatic piece, especially in the way that it ends with a smiling ghost looking down on his beneficiary.
"EVIL WILL PREVAIL" BY STEVEN HALE (ALCIELO)
Well, I can't accuse this piece of being saccharine, but I feel like it treads too far into cynicism.
I mean, there's no doubt that there's a satirical intent to this, but the characters surrounding the children are painted as so ghastly and unrealistically cold-hearted in this situation, that it's not only hard to believe, but it's pretty much just setting up a straw man for the sake of a small dose of sentimentality at the end.
I feel like this is pretty much unfilmable, with some of the best metaphors of the action lines getting lost, the incredulity of the funeral ceremony taking place, and the fact that you have the two fastest-writing adolescents in the world. Rather than indicating that we see every note written, it'd be better to just have the notes passed back and forth in quick succession. We only need to see the pencils move the first couple times.
In the end, I just don't see much of a purpose to this. Give us enough apathy and antipathy, then sure, we'll appreciate the small outburst of compassion in response, but there's little earned emotion within that.
"UNTITLED KINDNESS STORY" BY (ICEEIS)
This piece it an interesting mixture of darkness and lightness. It's a little like THE ROAD done as a Disney film. I felt there was a little bit too much personification of the dog for this to be entirely effective.
I think the last scene could have benefited from some ambiguity as to whether the dog truly intended to help him or not. For instance, a version where Ben digs through the rubble to find the injured dog protecting his photo might have had more dramatic resonance.
But to have it the way it is now, with the dog carrying the photo out to him and barking and wagging her tail in response to his questions is just ridiculous. It's a half-step away from Scooby-Doo.
But apart from that major misstep, I quite like what you've done here.
"I LOOKED AND BEHOLD, A PALE HORSE" BY MATT WILLIAMS (MATTYMUSTANG)
Hmm, for some reason I pictured The Man as having a denim jacket, a bowl cut and trying to mask a Spanish accent. Oh, and one of those airguns for killing cows. Oh, and a Best Supporting Actor Oscar even though it was a lead role. Anyway...
I think this was on the right path, but something didn't quite work. I finally narrowed it down to when The Man was asked "Why?" and responded "Because you doubt me. We assume the worst, and yet we're still surprised when it happens. I think deep down maybe that means we really can see the kindness and the generosity in the human spirit."
Okay. So... what does that mean?
There seems to be a major leap in logic in his line of thought. He's doing it because her doubt somehow reveals that deep down we see the kindness and the generosity in the human spirit. To explain that, he says we assume the worst, and yet we're surprised when it (I assume he's still talking about "the worst") happens. Huh?
Now the clear implication from the title is that this is the Grim Reaper, and so death is certainly tied into this metaphor. We know we're going to die, but we're still surprised when it happens. Got it. But how does that tie into Kate's understandable doubt about this seemingly altruistic deed, and how does that reveal that, deep down, we see kindness and generosity in the human spirit?
Is he saying that even though Kate has doubt, and assumes the worst about this, that she would still be surprised if it DID turn out to be some kind of trap or Faustian bargain? Because then, the answer to "Why?" wouldn't be "Because you doubt me" but because he believes that her doubt is FALSE, that deep down, she knows that this act is coming from a place of kindness and generosity in the human spirit. (Although P.T. Barnum put it another way.)
So, how The Man has created a connection between Kate's doubt and her underlying belief in the goodness of the human spirit is something I can't understand based on what little he said... but Kate clearly did, given that her next question was "Why me?" rather than "Uhh... come again?" Granted, it's possible that she's just working tables to help pay to her way through college where she's earning her philosophy degree, so maybe she could explain it to me.
Without being able to really wrap my mind around The Man's intentions the way Kate was able to, I lost touch with her emotional journey, unable to truly understand her motivation for accepting the money and whether that was the right decision, nor understand her motivation to pass it on.
But I was amused at the end, when Kate tells Jenna that she's going to find someone more deserving of the money, clearly implying that Jenna is not that person.
"IS EVERYTHING ALL RIGHT?" BY PATRICK C. TAYLOR (THEKEENGUY)
Hey, I wrote this one!
It was actually my second take on Kindness, after scrapping my first script, which dealt with a man who had practiced kindness all his life, just to arrive at the pearly gates and learn that Heaven was full up and that his soul was going to be obliterated instead, thus leading to a bitter argument between him and the guy filling in for St. Peter. I was trying to get at the idea of "why practice kindness if there is no reward?" but the script just came off as didactic and lacking in true profundity.
So I wrote something fun instead (and still tried to sneak a thematic point in there). Glad I did.
Oh, and I don't know if anyone knew this or thought to look it up, but the album I used in the script is real. Here's a link to my favorite song from it (and just one of my favorite pop songs ever, really)...
http://www.shelflife.com/mp3-bin/phthaloblue.mp3
"CAPTAIN JACK" BY BOB THIELKE (BTHIELKE)
I really enjoyed this. It got at a pretty simple message about kindness, that the reward for doing the right thing may not always match the value of doing what's in your own best interests, but that there's a greater satisfaction to be found in the act itself.
There has to be some level of faith that, even though there will always be those who do not do right by you, the more often you commit to the righteous path, the more likely it is that others like you will do the same thing. It's not just about one's own benefit but about how something that's to everyone's benefit should come around eventually. A rising tide raises all boats.
Well structured, well thought out, never pandering. Good job.
"FIND ME AGAIN" BY MARIA PAOLA CHIRONI (DISAXSTER)
There is something I like about tone here, the lack of on-the-nose dialogue... although I feel like it ends without really feeling like it has made its point, feeling more like a chapter out of a larger narrative than something of its own.
In trying to (I presume) corrupt the purest soul on Earth, Eric was compelled (tricked, as he puts it) to comforting her through the last moments of one of her many lives. Okay, got it. The point here being that she (inadvertently) and Michael (purposely) are doing more to instill empathy in him than he's doing to effectively claim his prize. Good winning over Evil in this battle as the war continues, which isn't looking good for Evil. The "attracting flies with honey" technique unexpectedly transitions into "act as if ye have faith..."
But I feel like the arrival at this point is a little "too little, too late" at a time when we're still sorting out the characters and their relationships, and that you've made your point without really creating an arc so that we feel it in any sort of way.
The only emotion wrought is the deathbed scene, which isn't the first in this anthology, and which is difficult to earn in a short script, and I don't think was earned here.
"THE METAPHYSICS OF LIFE THEFT" BY PAUL CLINGAN (BLOODMERIDIAN2004)
As I understand it (because I haven't actually seen the movie) SEVEN POUNDS has a similar set-up to this, minus the incarceration element.
It's interesting here that Burchett seems so cold and indifferent to all of this, epitomized in his final line. His acts of kindness seem to be born out of mischievous contempt for the system more than any sense of altruism. He doesn't seem to have much value for life, but is clearly straining to create some purpose for his death beyond that of a punishment he doesn't feel is deserved, and in that way feels he can transcend what he considers a misguided effort to punish him for his crime.
It's sort of like he's saying "So you say I'm a bad person? Well f*ck you, I'll prove you wrong by doing the kindest thing I can, even if I have to fight you tooth and nail to do it." It doesn't actually prove him to be a kind person, but simply feeds into his desire for self-empowerment.
I think it was a hilarious, fascinating and quite subversive way to end the anthology.
OVERALL
So, what is it that made for a KINDNESS anthology that trends so heavily towards death as a focus? I mean, really, it's to the point you could have retitled it DEATH and would have only needed to remove a few of the shorts.
It would be easy to dismiss that as something people did simply to add a falsely manufactured sense of profundity through melodrama, but I think there's something more behind it.
When examining the nature and purpose of "kindness," as I mentioned earlier in my review, my first premise had to do with a character who has just died and, after having no great reward for his acts of kindness on Earth, finds out that there will be no great reward for him in the afterlife either. The question I was posing with that, coming from my secular humanist point-of-view, was "what is the purpose of kindness if it is not bound to be rewarded?"
It's in the context of death that's it's so easy to examine the purpose of kindness. If, no matter how we act, our life will essentially be negated, why not only serve one's best interests?
Well, some people only do serve their best interests for that reason. Even the Golden Rule has an air of self-centeredness to it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If the motivation to treat others well is based primarily on the desire to be treated well, then It's not ALTRUISM, the true aim to help others without reward (and I would include reward in the afterlife in that definition).
In the act of giving up one's life to save another, that's pretty much the greatest act of altruism one who does not believe in an afterlife could do, and more than that, the easiest to define, as the ability for that person to even perceive being rewarded is non-existent, no matter what level of martyrdom it grants them.
The real motivation behind honest-to-goodness kindness (not born out of "what can it do for me?") is the desire for this world to be a better place not just in one's life, but beyond it, even for those a person will never meet. That's why we are not just kind when we think that act will be reciprocated. That's why we are kind even at times when the unkind act would have provided the greater benefit, or even the only possible benefit.
It's the faith that, if I do the right thing, even when I don't need to, that will help to make this world a tolerable place, a place that can accommodate the living, and be a place that's worth living in, so that when death negates life, it doesn't mean that our lives were lived for no good reason, and ensures that the life we had, for the short time we had it, was as worthwhile as could be for everyone, rather than just oneself.
I think a number of these shorts got at the heart of that idea through the altruistic actions of the characters. For that reason, I think this anthology was a resounding success.
Congratulations to everyone who contributed, and thanks to Paul for your time and effort in putting it together! read -
by TheKeenGuy on 06/28/2010This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production. There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate... This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production.
There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate to the screen, either because they are asides or because a moment as it happens on the page does not always play the same way in a live action film (the puppy kicking and Gary Busey come to mind).
Also, there’s times where the action lines tell the reader what the action/dialogue has not told the audience. Most notable was the “oh snap” moment on pg. 60 where you announce that this is really Emma, while on screen it would take a couple minutes for this to dawn on the audience, whereas a simple “EMMA” name tag would accomplish the reveal at the very instant you’re oh-snapping on the page.
Now, getting into the film’s narrative, I’ll first express my disappointment that the synopsis for this script was not only misleading, but a better premise. How often have we felt like we are barely a blip on the radar to someone who seems so perfect for us? The idea that a guy can’t seem to get his dream girl to remember him from Adam no matter what he dies is a terrific set-up… but it turns out, that’s not this script at all.
I’m not holding that against you in terms of the merits of the script, but in terms of marketing the script, pulling out that one “who the f*ck are you” moment from early in the second act in isolation (not even providing the amnesia element) and making it sound like it’s the film’s premise does nothing to get the reader off on the right foot.
Moreover, it highlights that the script has problems in its construction.
As it begins, it’s quite similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of the endless establishing meet-cute, although the tone veers closer to something like (500) DAYS OF SUMMER or even BEFORE SUNRISE for the patience, charm and wit you display in building the relationship between these two. Yet, I’d say this script starts off altogether too similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of early plot turns, which I won’t fault you if you haven’t seen or scoff at the notion that your work emulates such piffle.
Then, when Stu finally finds Emma (so it seems) in the coffee shop, for a moment it seems like this might head down the road of THE LADY EVE from Fonda’s perspective, but instead seems like it’s going to be a variation on 50 FIRST DATES (again, not something I would possibly accuse you of intending to emulate).
And then, at the midpoint, you finally establish the premise of the film. Good twin/bad twin scenario. This slow build-up now leads into the snowballing into outlandishness that you promised. Changing the tone of a comedy in that manner is a method that I’ve found is quite problematic, a real high-wire act. Shows what a masterwork DR. STRANGELOVE is that it pulled it off so well.
By the third act, the humor has become strained and obvious, on par with the later episodes of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (that’s a left-handed compliment), and the script relies too much on meaningless screwball antics, as Amy, Samuel and an assortment of side characters provide the majority of the humor while Stu and Emma ride in the backseat.
I found Emma’s search for Amy throughout the second half to be the least-inspired section of the script. When the good twin/bad twin reveal came, what was such an unpredictable narrative so far suddenly rolled out before us like a road map. The ingenuity of your writing simply is not served well by the story as you’ve constructed it.
You’ve pointed out that this does run too long at the moment, although maybe it wouldn’t have felt so bad if the stride you hit in the second act in terms of the characters and humor built into an even-better third act, rather than totally losing its grounding in semi-real-feeling quirky coolness of the first act.
My recommendation would be to focus on reworking the Emma storyline in the second half. It needs a total revamping.
To start with, it’s not properly constructed because you never seriously address the fact that Emma clearly abandoned her road-tripping lifestyle before her goal was accomplished. Her relationship with Stu, built up so much in the first act, is totally pointless when all we get is a reunion make-out session in the denouement. It diminishes the entire journey.
Here’s my advice. Abandon the notion of her seeking out Amy. One way to go is that she abandoned the road-trip lifestyle to take care of her dying father, and after he passes, she intends to start right back up again seeking Stu. THAT should be her goal. If anything, the pursuit of her twin should be an obstacle to that goal rather than the goal, a promise she made to her father.
I mean, let’s bring up SERENDIPITY again (oh, jesus christ, I know) and contrast the moment where Beckinsale finally finds the fiver with Cusack’s number on it JUST when she’s at that moment where she had given up on the hope of finding him, just at the brink of the point of no return, having to race off the airplane before it takes off. Contrast that with the dramatic flaccidity of Emma saying “What the hell? Five hundredth times a charm” and then seeing Stu’s face on the wall. Why in the world do we care about these two reuniting when Stu has so clearly become an afterthought to this character?
There is dramatic territory to be mined between these two, and more comic possibilities to be mined, if Emma arrives by the end of the second act reconnecting with Stu before the climax rather than at the tail end.
Imagine the reunion between Stu and Emma finally happening, but Stu believes that it’s Amy the Killer? Imagine the impact of another scenario in the third act that recalls the first act where just as it seems they are going to be together, Stu is about to be dragged away by the cops (or perhaps Emma, in a reversal) with the other having no idea where they went and even assuming they vamoosed on purpose. These two have issues to hash out, and the insanity around them does so much to complicate it.
Getting Stu and Emma back together and actually interacting in way that creates conflict for the third act is what will help this script from flying off into slapstick-hijinks-only territory (as it does now), because it’s the mixture of the outlandishness and the well-developed, charming character relationships from the first act that will make for an ideal third act.
Good luck! read -
A review of Romeo & Juliet; Lite Shakespeare (rev2)by TheKeenGuy on 04/22/2010I’m familiar with your script from the last time it was posted as a play in screenplay format, all taking place on a stage. You’ve taken some effort to turn this into something that can actually be called a screenplay for reasons more than format, though the script still does not work as a narrative feature, still playing like a stage play that has simply been transposed to... I’m familiar with your script from the last time it was posted as a play in screenplay format, all taking place on a stage. You’ve taken some effort to turn this into something that can actually be called a screenplay for reasons more than format, though the script still does not work as a narrative feature, still playing like a stage play that has simply been transposed to real locations.
The intention behind this is a little baffling, but it helps that you state in the production notes that this is essentially a lark (inspired by a “lark”) where you simply wanted to riff on dialogue. There’s certainly a lot of verbal interplay. There’s some clever moments, but more often those lengthy rhetorical tangents come across as forced, sometimes even eye-rollingly strained. Little of it does anything to advance the plot or give us any new insight into the play.
It’s all diversion, not a worthy replacement for all that you have stripped out in turning Shakespeare’s original play into an even less cinematic three-character piece.
In the stage play by the Reduced Shakespeare Company titled THE COMPLETE WRKS OF WLLM SHKSPR (ABRDIGED), they’ve already done the same thing, but with much more inspired results. They riff on ROMEO & JULIET in clever ways, and with a momentum that this piece sorely lacks. In fact, the first half of this script trudges along at a snail’s pace.
Furthermore, this doesn’t work as a “lite” telling of ROMEO & JULIET, because you have inexplicably made dramatic changes to Juliet’s backstory, turning the young virgin into a widow in her thirties with two children. So that throws out the whole idea that this could be a “fun” way of absorbing Shakespeare’s original story with the occasional comic tangent, and instead simply makes it a post-modern re-imagining that should only really be taken in by those already familiar with the original text.
Even from that perspective, it gets frightfully boring in the second half as you begin to insert much larger chunks of the dialogue and plot from the original play. Then, at a time when the audience has begun to get somewhat emotionally invested in this Cliff Notes for the Stage version of Shakespeare’s play, when you do suddenly insert humor about, particularly strained jokes sprung from “nay” and “lurch,” it feels totally out of place, and the mixing in of humor into Juliet’s death scene is simply a disaster in tone.
This comes across as something that was merely a writing exercise… but as a stage play, and especially as a screenplay, it’s a misfire, taking into little consideration what your audience would get out of it.
If you were to pursue this further, I strongly recommend ditching the revisionist Juliet backstory and trying to turn this into a breezier comic summary of the ROMEO & JULIET story that would appeal not only to fans of the play, but would work as a primer for those who have never read or seen an adaptation before.
Good luck! read
Write a Comment
Submissions by TheKeenGuy
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuy
A gun-shy underling in a hitman organization must fight to survive a bloody power struggle.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuy
His flight from LA to NYC canceled on 9/11, an Arab hitman must travel across the country to complete a job.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuy
A gun-shy underling in a hitman organization must fight to survive a bloody power struggle.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyStuck in "Romeo & Juliet," a prep student must derail her friends' romance before the story's fateful ending.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyGenres: dramaTwo guys learn their favorite musician fell on hard times and aim to help him recover and record a new album.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyStuck in an unreal high school, two guys battle between one's conscience and the other's violent impulses.
-
a screenplay by TheKeenGuyHis flight from LA to NYC canceled on 9/11, an Arab hitman must travel across the country to complete a job.
Reviews by TheKeenGuy 56
-
A review of Kindnessby TheKeenGuy on 11/20/2010I'll start by reviewing each short, and then give my overall thoughts on the anthology at the end... "PASS IT ON" BY DOMINIC JENKINSON (DOMINIC.JENKINSON) Similar to those "And I don't know, is this the part where I let go..." commercials (I don't remember for what, because I always fast-forward the moment I hear that obnoxious song). Also reminds me of a story from the... I'll start by reviewing each short, and then give my overall thoughts on the anthology at the end...
"PASS IT ON" BY DOMINIC JENKINSON (DOMINIC.JENKINSON)
Similar to those "And I don't know, is this the part where I let go..." commercials (I don't remember for what, because I always fast-forward the moment I hear that obnoxious song). Also reminds me of a story from the documentary THE BRIDGE in which, unfortunately, the jumper did not receive that life-saving smile.
A nice idea, that the "pay it forward" cycle he initiates saves his own life. It gets at the idea of how acts of kindness that are not directly reciprocated can still create a better world overall.
However, the voice-over was too vague for us to truly understand this character's mindset. Perhaps you felt that specificity would make this less relatable, but without understanding the nature of his suicidal tendencies, the notion that the smile would save him does not resonate. Maybe it's just prolonging the inevitable. Maybe he just guilty of suicide ideation. Who knows.
As a result, the whole thing comes off as a contrivance, as if the power of a smile can help anyone overcome any such hardship, even curing severe suicidal depression. That is, if the act didn't merely prolong the inevitable, or if the guy wasn't simply guilty of suicide ideation; both scenarios that would undercut your message.
I did love the crossword puzzle element, though. That helped make for a great anthology opener.
"WHAT DID YOU DO TODAY?" BY (GEORGE SAND)
Sweet story. One thing, though... I was confused about the combat scenario that you created
Given the current conflict in Afghanistan where the US military is working in conjunction with the Afghan military, I was thrown off by the fact that it seems you have an American soldier in combat AGAINST the Afghani military rather than in conjunction with them. I mean, I assume that's what it is, as opposed to some convoluted and unexplained scenario in which either the US soldier or the Afghan soldiers have gone rogue.
That hiccup interrupted the emotional journey for me a little, because it wasn't until Zoey's story created the parallel that I understood what the parallel was supposed to be, which is an effective one once realized.
"PROTOCOLS" BY CARL SALMINEN (GAMEARS)
I was quite taken by this piece, as it gets at the heart of an issue I understand completely. The inability to reason with computers on an emotional level, when emotion can be a necessary component. The computer's inability to comprehend the "please" was an emotional climax of great deftness. Excellent work.
A few little glitches. You give one age for the daughter in the action lines and another age in dialogue. It's only clear that "Bingham's daughter dissipates" means that she's teleported as a result of Bingham's reaction. Of course, those don't affect the story at all, just otherwise captivating reading experience.
Overall, I think this is the most effective, genuinely heart-rending and original piece in the anthology.
"LITTLE BIT" BY PCA (GIMMEABREAK)
I wrote a short a couple years ago similar to this, about a cat being put down, and I certainly understand the emotion behind it.
I think this short is a bit bumpy. The nonlinear narrative serves the small purpose of quickly setting up the lie, that Bonnie is pretending to detest a cat she's secretly caring for, but the same thing could have been accomplished chronologically, and the reveal comes so quickly that it's not as if it has any added resonance in this nonlinear form.
The act of kindness is virtually incidental and without much consequence. I have no idea why you held back the reveal that the cat was being taken in to be put down. Not only does it strain credulity, but minimizes Bonnie's most substantial act of kindness to simply saying "What can I do?" and then the cat is immediately sedated. If she learned that at the shelter, and carried through with it, comforting the cat in her final hour despite Bonnie's previous sentiment that she "doesn't do death," I think it would have been more resonant.
"STRANGERS IN THE NIGHT" BY JEREMY LALONDE (JEREMY)
You've successfully condensed the second act of LEAP YEAR into about 6 pages, and then you end it on this weird moment that is likely to confuse people (more in keeping with the ending of David Mamet's HOMICIDE).
I think the idea is that "Bert" simply gave her someone else's business card out of his wallet, because he does not wish for a reward for his actions... the same reason that he hasn't arrived in order to do the humpy-humpy with her, and probably never will. It's not really an act of kindness if he had that kind of ulterior motive as she suspected, right?
But I think many people have been conditioned by thrillers to suddenly take a moment like that and think "Oh my goodness, this guy isn't who he says he is! Did he pickpocket her purse to give it back to her? Is he planning something dastardly? QUICK, LADY, SNEAK OUT THE WINDOW BEFORE HE AXES YOU TO DEATH!" I doubt you intended that kind of ambiguity.
"THE DECISION" BY LAURA DEERFIELD (POTNIATHERON)
I felt this was an unfocused, overly busy effort. It's as though you were trying to cram a feature length narrative into a short, and the result is sort of a Cliff Notes version of THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS.
By the second page, within half a page, you introduce characters 3 through 10 by name, and it's nearly impossible to keep that straight without rereading and revisiting those introductions. The relationships are fuzzy, where it seems like they were developed with complexity before writing, but only hinted at within the actual dialogue.
By the time you have Ron doing a strip tease, it's comes across merely as bizarre, and the next scenes don't have time to recover into dramatic territory. Seven pages just isn't enough to shoehorn in all this material and still tell a dramatically resonant story.
"NORMA AND BUZZ" BY MIKE DANIEL (DEVELOPEXEC)
The "EXT. INFANT'S MOUTH" should be cut. Jumps the gun and isn't accurate. There's also a couple typos in there. it's = its, buy = by
As for the story, pretty charming, but overlong. The bus was your climax, and Norma and Buzz were happy together watching the sunset. FADE OUT there and I think it would have been entirely satisfactory.
The whole thing with Charlie just made the story feel like it was plodding along for no reason. The description of the children "long grown and gone" and the husband "long dead" are lazy. You didn't communicate those facts in the visuals, so its of no use to tell the reader that. And the way that Buzz controls Charlie from within his ear is highly derivative of RATATOUILLE, as any kid would tell you (although they might not use the phrase "highly derivative").
Overall, quite pleasant, but know when to get out while the getting's good.
"BREAKING AND ENTERING" BY MIRIAM PASCHAL (MIRIAMP)
This one, on the other hand, feels a little too brief. It's two quite unkind people who trade off acts of kindness. It's one after the other, so it's not quid pro quo, but still this feels like it doesn't go far enough in making any kind of point.
There's very little conflict that's mined between these two characters. As soon as they are confronted with the dilemma of whether or not to help each other, they both do the right thing with very little deliberation.
There's a point to be made there that people who are generally unkind can still have a breaking point where they will instinctively do what's right, but that's not driven home effectively at the moment. Perhaps it involves each character needing to really sacrifice something in their act of kindness, rather than just coming to form a mutually beneficial relationship, a truce born more out of necessity than kindness.
"COLORED PEOPLE" BY (CHRISTOPHER M. POWERS)
This premise is pretty much the same as HAROLD AND THE PURPLE CRAYON, so no points for originality on the concept. But you do create a nice set-up for this with the characters and their situation, and it's pretty charming all the way through.
I think it could have been a little stronger to have created a little more consequence to the actions and created more of an arc towards Stefy using this to do good things, but the sequences of discovery doesn't feel false the way it is now. Stefy's innocent and charming, and this doesn't require her to start off as a flawed protagonist.
So, on the whole, pretty well done.
"THE ANONYMOUS MR. FINNLEY" BY BRIAN C. SIMERL (YBU)
First of all, there's not a whole lot of dialogue (especially in the first half), but what dialogue there is is stilted, on-the-nose and often unnecessary. On the other hand, you occasionally tell is things in the action lines before they are effectively communicated on-screen, such as identifying Mr. Finnley and Mr. Giller by name, while the viewing audience could merely infer that the recipient of the fruit basket was Mr. Giller.
But the major flaw is the absurd naivete that a basket full of money left on the front step for the Rodriguez family would somehow solve their problems. Perhaps this is merely the faulty thinking of Mr. Finnley rather than the author, although the reaction of the Rodriguezes as written gives me the impression that this IS supposed to be seen as the cure to what ails them.
Furthermore, it doesn't even fit at all with the simple gesture that he provides to Mr. Giller that Mr. Finnley's approach towards helping the Rodriguez family is such a misguided and ineffective lavish donation. It's both a misjudgment and overreaction.
It doesn't matter that you had Mara arguing with her husband about the lack of money. The scenario you set up of an extremely young mother of three released from prison reentering that home is not one that you can realistically just throw money at to solve the problem. Not only that, but you then repeat the beat by having him donate the rest of his fortunes to another couple in financial straits, making the Rodriguez story nearly superfluous.
That element feels totally false and off-putting, and undermines the entire effort, which is disappointing, because I think there's the germ of something really interesting here, building on that idea of someone going to extreme (almost pathological) lengths to keep their role as a benefactor anonymous.
Instead, we get a quite corny and melodramatic piece, especially in the way that it ends with a smiling ghost looking down on his beneficiary.
"EVIL WILL PREVAIL" BY STEVEN HALE (ALCIELO)
Well, I can't accuse this piece of being saccharine, but I feel like it treads too far into cynicism.
I mean, there's no doubt that there's a satirical intent to this, but the characters surrounding the children are painted as so ghastly and unrealistically cold-hearted in this situation, that it's not only hard to believe, but it's pretty much just setting up a straw man for the sake of a small dose of sentimentality at the end.
I feel like this is pretty much unfilmable, with some of the best metaphors of the action lines getting lost, the incredulity of the funeral ceremony taking place, and the fact that you have the two fastest-writing adolescents in the world. Rather than indicating that we see every note written, it'd be better to just have the notes passed back and forth in quick succession. We only need to see the pencils move the first couple times.
In the end, I just don't see much of a purpose to this. Give us enough apathy and antipathy, then sure, we'll appreciate the small outburst of compassion in response, but there's little earned emotion within that.
"UNTITLED KINDNESS STORY" BY (ICEEIS)
This piece it an interesting mixture of darkness and lightness. It's a little like THE ROAD done as a Disney film. I felt there was a little bit too much personification of the dog for this to be entirely effective.
I think the last scene could have benefited from some ambiguity as to whether the dog truly intended to help him or not. For instance, a version where Ben digs through the rubble to find the injured dog protecting his photo might have had more dramatic resonance.
But to have it the way it is now, with the dog carrying the photo out to him and barking and wagging her tail in response to his questions is just ridiculous. It's a half-step away from Scooby-Doo.
But apart from that major misstep, I quite like what you've done here.
"I LOOKED AND BEHOLD, A PALE HORSE" BY MATT WILLIAMS (MATTYMUSTANG)
Hmm, for some reason I pictured The Man as having a denim jacket, a bowl cut and trying to mask a Spanish accent. Oh, and one of those airguns for killing cows. Oh, and a Best Supporting Actor Oscar even though it was a lead role. Anyway...
I think this was on the right path, but something didn't quite work. I finally narrowed it down to when The Man was asked "Why?" and responded "Because you doubt me. We assume the worst, and yet we're still surprised when it happens. I think deep down maybe that means we really can see the kindness and the generosity in the human spirit."
Okay. So... what does that mean?
There seems to be a major leap in logic in his line of thought. He's doing it because her doubt somehow reveals that deep down we see the kindness and the generosity in the human spirit. To explain that, he says we assume the worst, and yet we're surprised when it (I assume he's still talking about "the worst") happens. Huh?
Now the clear implication from the title is that this is the Grim Reaper, and so death is certainly tied into this metaphor. We know we're going to die, but we're still surprised when it happens. Got it. But how does that tie into Kate's understandable doubt about this seemingly altruistic deed, and how does that reveal that, deep down, we see kindness and generosity in the human spirit?
Is he saying that even though Kate has doubt, and assumes the worst about this, that she would still be surprised if it DID turn out to be some kind of trap or Faustian bargain? Because then, the answer to "Why?" wouldn't be "Because you doubt me" but because he believes that her doubt is FALSE, that deep down, she knows that this act is coming from a place of kindness and generosity in the human spirit. (Although P.T. Barnum put it another way.)
So, how The Man has created a connection between Kate's doubt and her underlying belief in the goodness of the human spirit is something I can't understand based on what little he said... but Kate clearly did, given that her next question was "Why me?" rather than "Uhh... come again?" Granted, it's possible that she's just working tables to help pay to her way through college where she's earning her philosophy degree, so maybe she could explain it to me.
Without being able to really wrap my mind around The Man's intentions the way Kate was able to, I lost touch with her emotional journey, unable to truly understand her motivation for accepting the money and whether that was the right decision, nor understand her motivation to pass it on.
But I was amused at the end, when Kate tells Jenna that she's going to find someone more deserving of the money, clearly implying that Jenna is not that person.
"IS EVERYTHING ALL RIGHT?" BY PATRICK C. TAYLOR (THEKEENGUY)
Hey, I wrote this one!
It was actually my second take on Kindness, after scrapping my first script, which dealt with a man who had practiced kindness all his life, just to arrive at the pearly gates and learn that Heaven was full up and that his soul was going to be obliterated instead, thus leading to a bitter argument between him and the guy filling in for St. Peter. I was trying to get at the idea of "why practice kindness if there is no reward?" but the script just came off as didactic and lacking in true profundity.
So I wrote something fun instead (and still tried to sneak a thematic point in there). Glad I did.
Oh, and I don't know if anyone knew this or thought to look it up, but the album I used in the script is real. Here's a link to my favorite song from it (and just one of my favorite pop songs ever, really)...
http://www.shelflife.com/mp3-bin/phthaloblue.mp3
"CAPTAIN JACK" BY BOB THIELKE (BTHIELKE)
I really enjoyed this. It got at a pretty simple message about kindness, that the reward for doing the right thing may not always match the value of doing what's in your own best interests, but that there's a greater satisfaction to be found in the act itself.
There has to be some level of faith that, even though there will always be those who do not do right by you, the more often you commit to the righteous path, the more likely it is that others like you will do the same thing. It's not just about one's own benefit but about how something that's to everyone's benefit should come around eventually. A rising tide raises all boats.
Well structured, well thought out, never pandering. Good job.
"FIND ME AGAIN" BY MARIA PAOLA CHIRONI (DISAXSTER)
There is something I like about tone here, the lack of on-the-nose dialogue... although I feel like it ends without really feeling like it has made its point, feeling more like a chapter out of a larger narrative than something of its own.
In trying to (I presume) corrupt the purest soul on Earth, Eric was compelled (tricked, as he puts it) to comforting her through the last moments of one of her many lives. Okay, got it. The point here being that she (inadvertently) and Michael (purposely) are doing more to instill empathy in him than he's doing to effectively claim his prize. Good winning over Evil in this battle as the war continues, which isn't looking good for Evil. The "attracting flies with honey" technique unexpectedly transitions into "act as if ye have faith..."
But I feel like the arrival at this point is a little "too little, too late" at a time when we're still sorting out the characters and their relationships, and that you've made your point without really creating an arc so that we feel it in any sort of way.
The only emotion wrought is the deathbed scene, which isn't the first in this anthology, and which is difficult to earn in a short script, and I don't think was earned here.
"THE METAPHYSICS OF LIFE THEFT" BY PAUL CLINGAN (BLOODMERIDIAN2004)
As I understand it (because I haven't actually seen the movie) SEVEN POUNDS has a similar set-up to this, minus the incarceration element.
It's interesting here that Burchett seems so cold and indifferent to all of this, epitomized in his final line. His acts of kindness seem to be born out of mischievous contempt for the system more than any sense of altruism. He doesn't seem to have much value for life, but is clearly straining to create some purpose for his death beyond that of a punishment he doesn't feel is deserved, and in that way feels he can transcend what he considers a misguided effort to punish him for his crime.
It's sort of like he's saying "So you say I'm a bad person? Well f*ck you, I'll prove you wrong by doing the kindest thing I can, even if I have to fight you tooth and nail to do it." It doesn't actually prove him to be a kind person, but simply feeds into his desire for self-empowerment.
I think it was a hilarious, fascinating and quite subversive way to end the anthology.
OVERALL
So, what is it that made for a KINDNESS anthology that trends so heavily towards death as a focus? I mean, really, it's to the point you could have retitled it DEATH and would have only needed to remove a few of the shorts.
It would be easy to dismiss that as something people did simply to add a falsely manufactured sense of profundity through melodrama, but I think there's something more behind it.
When examining the nature and purpose of "kindness," as I mentioned earlier in my review, my first premise had to do with a character who has just died and, after having no great reward for his acts of kindness on Earth, finds out that there will be no great reward for him in the afterlife either. The question I was posing with that, coming from my secular humanist point-of-view, was "what is the purpose of kindness if it is not bound to be rewarded?"
It's in the context of death that's it's so easy to examine the purpose of kindness. If, no matter how we act, our life will essentially be negated, why not only serve one's best interests?
Well, some people only do serve their best interests for that reason. Even the Golden Rule has an air of self-centeredness to it. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If the motivation to treat others well is based primarily on the desire to be treated well, then It's not ALTRUISM, the true aim to help others without reward (and I would include reward in the afterlife in that definition).
In the act of giving up one's life to save another, that's pretty much the greatest act of altruism one who does not believe in an afterlife could do, and more than that, the easiest to define, as the ability for that person to even perceive being rewarded is non-existent, no matter what level of martyrdom it grants them.
The real motivation behind honest-to-goodness kindness (not born out of "what can it do for me?") is the desire for this world to be a better place not just in one's life, but beyond it, even for those a person will never meet. That's why we are not just kind when we think that act will be reciprocated. That's why we are kind even at times when the unkind act would have provided the greater benefit, or even the only possible benefit.
It's the faith that, if I do the right thing, even when I don't need to, that will help to make this world a tolerable place, a place that can accommodate the living, and be a place that's worth living in, so that when death negates life, it doesn't mean that our lives were lived for no good reason, and ensures that the life we had, for the short time we had it, was as worthwhile as could be for everyone, rather than just oneself.
I think a number of these shorts got at the heart of that idea through the altruistic actions of the characters. For that reason, I think this anthology was a resounding success.
Congratulations to everyone who contributed, and thanks to Paul for your time and effort in putting it together! read -
by TheKeenGuy on 06/28/2010This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production. There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate... This contains some of the funniest writing I’ve read on Triggerstreet. There’s a real charm, especially thanks to the tone in the action lines, especially early on when they do a lot to fill in the color that the actors’ performances will bring later in production.
There’s also a drawback to that, though, as a great deal of the best humor in this script would not translate to the screen, either because they are asides or because a moment as it happens on the page does not always play the same way in a live action film (the puppy kicking and Gary Busey come to mind).
Also, there’s times where the action lines tell the reader what the action/dialogue has not told the audience. Most notable was the “oh snap” moment on pg. 60 where you announce that this is really Emma, while on screen it would take a couple minutes for this to dawn on the audience, whereas a simple “EMMA” name tag would accomplish the reveal at the very instant you’re oh-snapping on the page.
Now, getting into the film’s narrative, I’ll first express my disappointment that the synopsis for this script was not only misleading, but a better premise. How often have we felt like we are barely a blip on the radar to someone who seems so perfect for us? The idea that a guy can’t seem to get his dream girl to remember him from Adam no matter what he dies is a terrific set-up… but it turns out, that’s not this script at all.
I’m not holding that against you in terms of the merits of the script, but in terms of marketing the script, pulling out that one “who the f*ck are you” moment from early in the second act in isolation (not even providing the amnesia element) and making it sound like it’s the film’s premise does nothing to get the reader off on the right foot.
Moreover, it highlights that the script has problems in its construction.
As it begins, it’s quite similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of the endless establishing meet-cute, although the tone veers closer to something like (500) DAYS OF SUMMER or even BEFORE SUNRISE for the patience, charm and wit you display in building the relationship between these two. Yet, I’d say this script starts off altogether too similar to SERENDIPITY in terms of early plot turns, which I won’t fault you if you haven’t seen or scoff at the notion that your work emulates such piffle.
Then, when Stu finally finds Emma (so it seems) in the coffee shop, for a moment it seems like this might head down the road of THE LADY EVE from Fonda’s perspective, but instead seems like it’s going to be a variation on 50 FIRST DATES (again, not something I would possibly accuse you of intending to emulate).
And then, at the midpoint, you finally establish the premise of the film. Good twin/bad twin scenario. This slow build-up now leads into the snowballing into outlandishness that you promised. Changing the tone of a comedy in that manner is a method that I’ve found is quite problematic, a real high-wire act. Shows what a masterwork DR. STRANGELOVE is that it pulled it off so well.
By the third act, the humor has become strained and obvious, on par with the later episodes of ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT (that’s a left-handed compliment), and the script relies too much on meaningless screwball antics, as Amy, Samuel and an assortment of side characters provide the majority of the humor while Stu and Emma ride in the backseat.
I found Emma’s search for Amy throughout the second half to be the least-inspired section of the script. When the good twin/bad twin reveal came, what was such an unpredictable narrative so far suddenly rolled out before us like a road map. The ingenuity of your writing simply is not served well by the story as you’ve constructed it.
You’ve pointed out that this does run too long at the moment, although maybe it wouldn’t have felt so bad if the stride you hit in the second act in terms of the characters and humor built into an even-better third act, rather than totally losing its grounding in semi-real-feeling quirky coolness of the first act.
My recommendation would be to focus on reworking the Emma storyline in the second half. It needs a total revamping.
To start with, it’s not properly constructed because you never seriously address the fact that Emma clearly abandoned her road-tripping lifestyle before her goal was accomplished. Her relationship with Stu, built up so much in the first act, is totally pointless when all we get is a reunion make-out session in the denouement. It diminishes the entire journey.
Here’s my advice. Abandon the notion of her seeking out Amy. One way to go is that she abandoned the road-trip lifestyle to take care of her dying father, and after he passes, she intends to start right back up again seeking Stu. THAT should be her goal. If anything, the pursuit of her twin should be an obstacle to that goal rather than the goal, a promise she made to her father.
I mean, let’s bring up SERENDIPITY again (oh, jesus christ, I know) and contrast the moment where Beckinsale finally finds the fiver with Cusack’s number on it JUST when she’s at that moment where she had given up on the hope of finding him, just at the brink of the point of no return, having to race off the airplane before it takes off. Contrast that with the dramatic flaccidity of Emma saying “What the hell? Five hundredth times a charm” and then seeing Stu’s face on the wall. Why in the world do we care about these two reuniting when Stu has so clearly become an afterthought to this character?
There is dramatic territory to be mined between these two, and more comic possibilities to be mined, if Emma arrives by the end of the second act reconnecting with Stu before the climax rather than at the tail end.
Imagine the reunion between Stu and Emma finally happening, but Stu believes that it’s Amy the Killer? Imagine the impact of another scenario in the third act that recalls the first act where just as it seems they are going to be together, Stu is about to be dragged away by the cops (or perhaps Emma, in a reversal) with the other having no idea where they went and even assuming they vamoosed on purpose. These two have issues to hash out, and the insanity around them does so much to complicate it.
Getting Stu and Emma back together and actually interacting in way that creates conflict for the third act is what will help this script from flying off into slapstick-hijinks-only territory (as it does now), because it’s the mixture of the outlandishness and the well-developed, charming character relationships from the first act that will make for an ideal third act.
Good luck! read -
A review of Romeo & Juliet; Lite Shakespeare (rev2)by TheKeenGuy on 04/22/2010I’m familiar with your script from the last time it was posted as a play in screenplay format, all taking place on a stage. You’ve taken some effort to turn this into something that can actually be called a screenplay for reasons more than format, though the script still does not work as a narrative feature, still playing like a stage play that has simply been transposed to... I’m familiar with your script from the last time it was posted as a play in screenplay format, all taking place on a stage. You’ve taken some effort to turn this into something that can actually be called a screenplay for reasons more than format, though the script still does not work as a narrative feature, still playing like a stage play that has simply been transposed to real locations.
The intention behind this is a little baffling, but it helps that you state in the production notes that this is essentially a lark (inspired by a “lark”) where you simply wanted to riff on dialogue. There’s certainly a lot of verbal interplay. There’s some clever moments, but more often those lengthy rhetorical tangents come across as forced, sometimes even eye-rollingly strained. Little of it does anything to advance the plot or give us any new insight into the play.
It’s all diversion, not a worthy replacement for all that you have stripped out in turning Shakespeare’s original play into an even less cinematic three-character piece.
In the stage play by the Reduced Shakespeare Company titled THE COMPLETE WRKS OF WLLM SHKSPR (ABRDIGED), they’ve already done the same thing, but with much more inspired results. They riff on ROMEO & JULIET in clever ways, and with a momentum that this piece sorely lacks. In fact, the first half of this script trudges along at a snail’s pace.
Furthermore, this doesn’t work as a “lite” telling of ROMEO & JULIET, because you have inexplicably made dramatic changes to Juliet’s backstory, turning the young virgin into a widow in her thirties with two children. So that throws out the whole idea that this could be a “fun” way of absorbing Shakespeare’s original story with the occasional comic tangent, and instead simply makes it a post-modern re-imagining that should only really be taken in by those already familiar with the original text.
Even from that perspective, it gets frightfully boring in the second half as you begin to insert much larger chunks of the dialogue and plot from the original play. Then, at a time when the audience has begun to get somewhat emotionally invested in this Cliff Notes for the Stage version of Shakespeare’s play, when you do suddenly insert humor about, particularly strained jokes sprung from “nay” and “lurch,” it feels totally out of place, and the mixing in of humor into Juliet’s death scene is simply a disaster in tone.
This comes across as something that was merely a writing exercise… but as a stage play, and especially as a screenplay, it’s a misfire, taking into little consideration what your audience would get out of it.
If you were to pursue this further, I strongly recommend ditching the revisionist Juliet backstory and trying to turn this into a breezier comic summary of the ROMEO & JULIET story that would appeal not only to fans of the play, but would work as a primer for those who have never read or seen an adaptation before.
Good luck! read -
A review of Born To Be Jollyby TheKeenGuy on 03/31/2010LOGLINE Picked to be the new Santa by scheming elves, an egocentric amateur magician must prove he’s not the worst guy in the world for the job or else this’ll be the last Christmas. PAGE NOTES Pg. 1 “The children don’t fake it.” This is sort of a double negative. At first made me think that the children were stone faced, and then I realized you meant their surprise is... LOGLINE
Picked to be the new Santa by scheming elves, an egocentric amateur magician must prove he’s not the worst guy in the world for the job or else this’ll be the last Christmas.
PAGE NOTES
Pg. 1 “The children don’t fake it.” This is sort of a double negative. At first made me think that the children were stone faced, and then I realized you meant their surprise is genuine.
Pg. 3 I personally feel that the “child wise beyond his/her years” is an overused convention. I feel like there’s more of them in family films than children who actually behave like children.
Pg. 3 “I was talking to my son.” Ha, I like that exchange.
Pg. 3 The upset girl simply vanished on page 2. Should’ve played her exit up.
Pg. 3-5 I’d recommend you either use mini-slugs or use CONTINUOUS.
Pg. 4 “That wasn’t even words!” Another funny exchange.
Pg. 9 The movie references fall a little flat. Might consider alternative.
Pg. 13 The movie elf thing is too self-conscious to suit the story so far.
Pg. 16 I was anticipating a funnier pay-off to the keys thing. You give a six year-old the keys to a huge toy store! Think of what could have happened!
Pg. 17 I have a hard time believing that Sally would be so desperate and incapable of hiring a Santa that she would provide this opportunity to Danny rather than fire him. Provide a reason why she can’t find another. For instance, the professional Santas are boycotting the store because of the incident (say, because of the way Danny mishandles the aftermath of the death on news cameras).
Pg. 19 “Oh, hugging, okay.” Ha.
Pg. 20-21 You can just do “LATER” as a mini-slug.
Pg. 24 I think you could get a laugh by adding a long pause before Danny’s “What the hell are you doing in here?”
Pg. 24-25 I don’t quite get the point of this police officer scene. It lacks credulity, especially in the police officer coming to Danny’s apartment. There’s nothing too original or hilarious about it, nor does it seem to move the story forward, so it should be cut unless there’s some kind of follow-up to it. Find another way to communicate his internal debate.
Pg. 26 “Yes - you - should - come - ab…” Ha.
Pg. 29 “Does it say that fifty two million times?” Ha.
Pg. 31 I’m casting a no vote on reindeer poop jokes.
Pg. 31 Rollo talking his secret plan out loud to himself is too broad, and it’s a lazy way to deliver that exposition.
Pg. 34 I would have trouble understanding in any case if Sally were able to see this, since wouldn’t that mean that New Yorkers all over the place would spot this every time?
Pg. 35 Ha, nice twist to the Craig scene.
Pg. 36 get TO writing
Pg. 38 I don’t really see how Danny has endeared himself to Sally that quickly. You’ve given plenty of reason for her not to like him.
Pg. 42 Role plays, not roll. Also, it’d be better if Rollo were DOING something as an antagonist, not just waiting for something to happen.
THE BIG PICTURE
I have a Santa Claus script idea in my inventory. It wasn’t until I investigated the spec market that I realized the glut of Santa Claus scripts that are out there, and decided that while I felt mine was inspired in a few ways, it didn’t stand out from the crowd of scripts in red suits and caps.
This script has that issue. It feels as though it has been cobbled together from elements of THE SANTA CLAUSE, SANTA CLAUS: THE MOVIE, MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET and FRED CLAUS. In fact, I had trouble not picturing Vince Vaughan as the male lead. It hardly breaks any new ground.
But, at the same time, this does make for a good read based on the talent and charm you bring to the quality of the writing.
The dialogue is excellent, hilarious time after time after time. You’ve got a great sense of humor, and a smart mind when it comes to creating characters and conflict that will mine that humor.
At the best times in this screenplay, especially towards the end, I felt like this really hit a rhythm along the lines of a Pixar comic-adventure narrative. That’s the reason my page notes stopped halfway through. I stopped detecting narrative issues and just got carried away by the story.
I appreciated the madcap subversiveness at times, like Danny’s desperate (and still rather disastrous) doling out of presents even during the climax. A few times early on I felt like it played a little too adult, so be cautious of that. It took a little too long for this to really settle into a comfortable and marketable tone.
I’m not sure if this is going to be anything more than a strong writing sample, but that doesn’t mean you should give up on it. Just that you should have some other high-concept comedy specs available. Don’t try to make this your only calling card.
As to how to improve it, my main criticism not addressed in the page notes would be that the actor aspect for the protagonist does virtually nothing to serve the premise or plot.
He’s already a magician, and adding the actor aspect really only makes this feel a little tired, as Hollywood is always overrun with specs that deal with the industry in some way or another.
I found the too-tall audition scene hilarious, but later realized that the too-tall aspect didn’t serve the development of his character very well. It didn’t prove or disprove anything about his talents. It’s one of those babies you have to kill situations.
Plus, his acting aspirations are essentially abandoned as he gets the Santa gig, and serves only as an occasional punch line, not really adding anything to the conflict or the character after the first act.
The magician element works though, and could work even better the more you play it up. (You don’t want to turn him into a replica of Gob from ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT, though.)
The correlation between magic and Santa is easy to play up. As a mediocre magician, he may have higher aspirations, but the only people he can really impress/entertain is children, who have a natural instinct to believe their eyes, a quality we lose as we grow up and come to doubt what we see, what we’re told.
Play up not just his apathy when it comes to kids’ feelings, but his contempt for having to perform for children (despite the fact that he acts more like one than most adults).
Make the audition scene about a magic act, and about his frustration with not being able to remotely entertain or impress the stone-faced adults at the cattle call. They don’t have the sense of wonder that he does about magic, and he resents being made to feel like a kid just because they’re the only ones who feel the way he does about magic.
But as Santa, the childlike enthusiasm he shares with the children actually makes him perfect, and once he embraces the special connection he’s able to have with children, that’s when he’s able to really be great at what he does.
That gets right at your theme, which is really able not just being prideful, but taking pridce in doing the right thing. Be responsible, do your job well. This is about earning your self-esteem, which you can do as a lowly toy store employee or as Santa Claus himself.
Danny has used ego as a shield to protect him from a sense of failure, telling himself that he doesn’t need to prove himself because his talent is inherent… and the story is about how you are judged not by how you feel about yourself, but by what you do for others.
Also, for god’s sake, go with the title SUDDENLY ST. NICK.
Good luck! read -
A review of We'll Always Have Basra (v2)by TheKeenGuy on 12/08/2009LOGLINE After mercenaries fired by the US government begin a violent rampage, an alcoholic ex-war hero must infiltrate the group in order to stop their planned assault on Mosul. PAGE NOTES Pg. 1 “and passes by the boy into a bar.” This isn’t really needed. Pg. 1 “to him, scowls and” Should be divided into two sentences or rewritten as one. Pg. 1 “He surveys… nonetheless.”... LOGLINE
After mercenaries fired by the US government begin a violent rampage, an alcoholic ex-war hero must infiltrate the group in order to stop their planned assault on Mosul.
PAGE NOTES
Pg. 1 “and passes by the boy into a bar.” This isn’t really needed.
Pg. 1 “to him, scowls and” Should be divided into two sentences or rewritten as one.
Pg. 1 “He surveys… nonetheless.” Quite a run-on sentence, and with so much happening in the sentence, the “nonetheless” was a speed-bump, because I had to take a moment to realize it referred to the scowls and mutters from the previous action line.
Pg. 1 “imperialist dogs” Missing period.
The first page makes a big impression, so be especially careful about making it a clean, easy read. Of course, really, this standard should be held to the whole script.
Pg. 1 “I dunno what…” The whole line isn’t needed. The action of laying down the money and the Barman’s change says it all. Also, I would recommend against the translations of the Arabic, because you want the audience in the same boat as Dave.
Pg. 2 “It used to be…” This line is too exposition-heavy.
Pg. 2 “DAVE’S ALCOHOLISM” I wouldn’t recommend naming a montage like this, especially because this montage as communicated visually merely tells us that he got drunk, not that he’s an alcoholic.
Pg. 3 “He flanked” Typo. If the script is this typo-heavy throughout, then I’d recommend you proofread it again. If you have Final Draft, the speech mechanism is an excellent way to catch these mistakes. (You can also find a similar program online for free.)
Pg. 3 Not sure the layman knows what a “jar head” is, even after the movie JARHEAD. Also, the character intros should be capped, even if they have no dialogue.
Pg. 5 “stops it’s Iraqi” its
Pg. 7 “O’Connell himself” No need for “himself.”
Pg. 8 “O’Connell thinks back.” Cut this. Even the flashback is only debatably necessary, but how do you visually communicate this part? By having him look up and to the left and the screen goes wavy?
Pg. 9 “became deservedly disillusioned with the command of one Steven Steadman” This is worded very awkwardly for dialogue. Work on delivering exposition in a more natural way.
The thing is, you never want a character speaking directly to the audience, saying either what both characters know or what a person wouldn’t naturally admit unprovoked. Avoid, the way Mamet puts it, “Would you like a cup of coffee because I’m Irish?”
Pg. 18 “You’ll be like Die Hard With a Vengeance.” Too self-conscious a movie reference.
This dialogue-heavy scene between Dave and O’Connell, and well as Dave’s last two dialogue heavy scenes (with Bishop and O’Connell again) read too young and unprofessional, and suffer what I talked about before where you’re focused too much on connecting the expository dots to build the story, and the dialogue suffers.
Pg. 34 “” wanna come back to the fighting, any fighting.” This is weak as his fake motivation to join with anti-American terrorists, at least as communicated here. If you don’t have him demonstrate his loyalty to the cost in some physical way, then he better make a darn convincing speech. One that almost makes the audience say “you know, he’s got a point.”
Pg. 35 How does the viewing audience know that’s Steadman?
Pg. 37 Does Dave shoot Mushtaq so that Mushtaq doesn’t follow him out of the van? I can see no other reason (in which case it should happen differently, meaning during Dave’s struggle to get out of the van as fast as possible), but it still feels unnecessary.
Pg. 40 “possibly add something…” It really does yourself a disservice to put a working draft out there for review. My page notes have slowed down because there’s really too many little fixes you probably already know that you need to make. It makes me feel that it’s really only going to be helpful to focus on the big picture stuff.
Pg. 51 “You didn’t lock the door.” This feels so very false. She should be prepared to break in anyway.
Pg. 53 “No. You’re one of those side-on girls.” Funny.
Pg. 58 “loosing” losing… Forty is misspelled also.
Pg. 61 “rye smile” wry
Pg. 81 “Dave throws his phone out the jeep.” Umm, why? Is he just being recklessly petulant?
Pg. 82 “I wanted back in. I just wanted to see my friend.” I’m definitely going to focus on this once I’m done with page notes.
Pg. 87 “Pretty poor guard work. Especially since you know I was coming.” I’ll say. Having characters point out giant gaps in logic does not excuse them.
Okay, finished reading, onto…
THE BIG PICTURE
I was surprised as I got into this to find this that this isn’t your average Iraqi war film. This is a genre pic, part of the post-Tarantino movement of colorful characters, vast amounts of black humor, and a LOT of violence. Guy Ritchie came right to mind for me, so I’m not surprised to see your reverence of him indicated in your bio.
I also think it’s very likely that you had a neo-western conceit in mind. If not, you were at least channeling a lot of western motifs subconsciously.
You do a good job of creating memorable characters with interesting quirks, although sometimes it’s overkill when it does nothing to serve the plot (Dave and Ophelia’s “c*nt” discussion comes to mind.). You also have too many beats of Rex killing his own men, and I’m surprised there wasn’t a pay-off where he realizes that he killed someone he actually needs.
Dave is actually your most poorly defined character, and that’s where you focus needs to start with your rewrite. To start with, as I pointed out, you seem to give him two goals, neither of which resonates. He wants to get back in the armed forces, for whatever reason, and he wants to find Mike… for whatever reason.
You put a lot into that idea that he wants to find Mike, but there’s no motivation behind it. When he does find Mike, he has a rather meaningless chat, and then abandons Mike because his focus has turned to the mission at hand. This isn’t presented with any dramatic irony or pathos. It’s just bizarre that Dave dismisses what was his initial goal. Mike is hardly more than a MacGuffin. That part of the plot is useless in this draft.
The same goes for Dave’s alcoholism. The first scene is focused on Dave’s alcoholism, and would’ve had more resonance had his alcoholism actually impaired him in some way where he probably could have saved the beggar boy otherwise. But the alcoholism doesn’t really affect the plot in any way. It’s a patch to create some semblance of a character arc. He gets drunk in the first act and pours out the drink in the third act. It’s cliché, and it should be scrapped unless you are actually going to make it relevant.
A clever take would see Dave truly struggling with sobriety throughout the mission and, when it’s finally accomplished, he returns to his binge drinking ways. A tragic character who sobered up just long enough to redeem himself.
So you need to go back to the first act and fix this. I think the strongest way possibly would be to focus on that incident which the characters all talk about, but you don’t show, where the Green Beret mission with Dave, Mike, Bishop, etc. went to hell.
I would recommend that be your opening scene, because the impact that incident has on these men needs to be the brush you use to paint all of this. It has to be a severe enough betrayal by the US government (the strings invisibly pulled by Steadman, of course, who gained stature as a result) that the audience can understand how it turned these American heroes into severely damaged men, some now even fighting against the US.
Imagine Dave, now a former soldier racked with guilt because he left another soldier to die (Mike) in the chaos of that mission gone bad. Now he’s a cripple and an alcoholic.
Then, O’Connell comes to him and reveals that Mike isn’t dead, but has fallen in with the wrong crowd. That way, Dave’s interest in the mission, in finding Mike, is clear. He can redeem himself by saving Mike, and no longer blame himself for Mike’s death. It’s his second chance.
Of course, the tragedy can end the same way (made stronger by this backstory, in fact), when Dave has to kill Mike to complete the mission and save many more lives. He’s a hero, but he’s right back to where he was before at the end of the film, self-loathing and binge-drinking.
You could certainly form a stronger character arc for your protagonist out of something like that, and that’s what’ll really give this film an emotional core. As it, it feels a little too hollow and cynical.
Also, I’ll repeat from the page notes because it’s important, you need to up the maturity of your characters, both in what they do and what they say. Often, the dialogue read too young, and their actions were not particularly logical. This goes far beyond the few examples I pointed out.
Don’t lose the sense of fun and eccentricity that you bring to this, but try to make the characters appropriate to their age/position and more credible overall.
Good luck! read -
A review of Fraternal Twins - 2nd Draftby TheKeenGuy on 10/07/2009LOGLINE Struggling to pay his own way through college, an eternally-unlucky go-getter must prevent his dream girl from getting wooed away by his always-favored “older” twin brother. PAGE NOTES Pg. 2 “swims out to” Previously they were running, which made me picture the men-in-sperm-suits of EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX… Now they’re swimming, which calls... LOGLINE
Struggling to pay his own way through college, an eternally-unlucky go-getter must prevent his dream girl from getting wooed away by his always-favored “older” twin brother.
PAGE NOTES
Pg. 2 “swims out to” Previously they were running, which made me picture the men-in-sperm-suits of EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX… Now they’re swimming, which calls to mind more realistic sperm, perhaps animated. Frankly, I have no idea what I’m supposed to be picturing.
Pg. 3 I don’t think the margins for your character heading/dialogue are correct. Struck me as distracting.
Pg. 5 “YOUNG TOMMY… comes into the classroom” How would the viewing audience know that this specifically is his older brother? This could be done by giving the brothers distinguishing marks, or by having the mother taking the tag off a new shirt that we see on Tommy in the next scene. Keep it concise, but the goal is to make sure that you don’t tell the reader on the page what the audience in the cinema wouldn’t know (even if they could probably guess).
Of course, now that I think about it, there’s no reason to set that as two scenes instead of one. Have Tommy walk into the house, or Robert see him out the window. Keep the budget down.
Pg. 8 “Changes his mind” Cut from day to night before he digs it back out. The abrupt, unmotivated change doesn’t quite work.
Pg. 10 It doesn’t make sense that he goes to college because “I couldn’t wait to finally get away from home” because of his problems with his brother and then DECIDES to go to the same college that his brother attends. This is a BIG problem with your set-up, because it’s counter-intuitive, and you give no sense that it’s unavoidable.
Pg. 12 It’s not playing fair that Robert doesn’t simply say that he was working (the cut implies that he didn’t). It’s contrived conflict in an effort to gain sympathy for the character, but the fact that he could so easily have explained himself to this professor undercuts that.
Avoid conflicts created simply through poor communication (as opposed to honest counter-positions). They usually feel contrived, and that’s because they are.
There’s a quicker, less contrived way to play that scene anyway. Robert starting to doze off, the book slams on the desk, Robert looks up at the Professor, who points to the door. Cut to the next scene.
Pg. 13 Robert not realizing that he has put on and taken a walk wearing someone else’s sweat pants again makes him seem rather foolish rather than garnering the sympathy you are trying to create.
Pg. 25 At the moment, this has been shaping up more as a drama with comic touches. Given how broadly this starts out, with personified sperm and all, the script has settled down into something not particularly comic at all, and quite a downer.
Pg. 29 “He doesn’t pay another ex-wife.” Missing “want to”?
Pg. 33 I’m really glad you went in this direction where Sarah is in on the scheme… which creates a much more interesting tension.
We’ve seen a million films where the protag is deceiving the love interest, who will inevitably learn about it from the antag just before the third act. The fact that you set that up and then zagged away is refreshing, as now our concern is in line with Robert’s. Given both Tommy’s charms and his bad luck, Sarah getting in on the scheme is just screaming to backfire, and both we and Robert know that for reasons Sarah wouldn’t truly understand.
Pg. 40 I don’t understand why the milk gag come right on top of the slamming of the door. Place it a couple lines later to make it less awkward, if you need it at all.
Pg. 41 You’re occasionally misusing apostrophes. “Let’s” on this page and “moment’s” a few pages ago, and a few other places in the script.
Pg. 45 “he thinks everyone is looking” How do we know this? A description like “he eyes everyone who might be looking at him or snickering his way” is a better way to actually communicate that through a visual.
Pg. 50 “The phone rests at the bottom of the fish tank.” Very cute transition.
Pg. 53 “realizes it’s cold, but can’t bring himself” Create a visual moment. Have him shiver, turn to open the door, but the knob is rattling to the beat of the vigorous bonking. Robert walks off. That way you can even milk another joke out of the scene.
Pg. 66 “…when I went to pick up my stuffed rabbit.” Missed a good visual cue here. Just have Tommy pull the stuffed rabbit out of his back pocket as an answer. You can still work in “Cindy told me” if you need it, and could even have a joke about whether Cindy is the rabbit’s name.
Pg. 67 “All right, let me guess…” Tommy’s newfound (or newly revealed) sensitivity is a little much, at least as well-articulated as it is. Not that the change shouldn’t happen, but it’ll work better if he’s still somewhat vapid even though he knows what the right thing to do is. It’ll allow you to wring some more humor out as well.
Pg. 77 You don’t need new slugs for the court and the stands. Mini-slugs, perhaps, but I’m not even sure that’s necessary. It’s all one scene in what’s essentially the same location.
Okay, finished reading, now onto the…
THE BIG PICTURE
Pleasant. That’s the way I’d describe this script, for the most part. It was occasionally charming and clever, occasionally plodding and unoriginal. I didn’t hate it or love it, and I suspect that’s how most people would feel... and that’s not where you want this to be. There’s definitely greater potential to be mined with this script, and that’s what I want to focus on.
Essentially, I’m going to focus on the two areas that need the greatest focus towards the goal of improving the script, the CONFLICT and the THEME.
The CONFLICT, to a great extent, is structured around Robert’s desire to go to college, and yet his motivation for doing so is to get away from home. Thus, enrolling in the school that his brother also attends is certainly not the only way for him to achieve his goal.
Why couldn’t Robert have taken a year to work and build up money to then enroll the next year? Given how much smarter he is than his brother, why would his only acceptance letter come from a school his much less academic brother also got into? Robert wasn’t truly forced into this conflict. He made bad decisions… and that severely undercuts the conflict.
It’s this simple… If the script is about how he is eternally unlucky, then he must ALWAYS make what seems like a good decision at the time.
Good Judgment + Negative Results = Bad Luck.
So that’s the first thing to focus on. Now let’s backtrack to the catalyst of all this. The parents.
I liked the way you set this up. An unexpected twin forever treated like an afterthought by his parents. It doesn’t feel particularly realistic, but doesn’t need to in a comedy… so long as you maintain a consistent tone with the comedy.
Once this script settled into “modern day,” it turned out to be a dramedy that only on rare occasions played as broadly as the opening sequence. Dan’s nympho problem and the Jack Jackman subplots could be grouped in, but these are carnival sideshows surrounding a very talky and only mildly comic dual plotline for the protagonist, concerning his financial debt and his romantic pursuit.
The protagonist’s conflict does not directly inspire the majority of the comic elements in this script, and thus Robert and especially Tommy and Sarah, your main characters, barely contribute to that aspect.
Those three characters certainly do not need to be redrawn to be more cartoonish… but certainly, the conflict can be re-conceived in a way where it’s the catalyst for comedy among the story’s major players.
So, okay, cycling back again, because I need to address further the flaws in how the protagonist and his conflict are set up.
Robert’s an afterthought to his parents. Hand-me-downs, no tuition. (I actually think you’re missing a third beat of “But still…” in between those two.) This puts Robert in a place where his brother always gets the big end of the stick (undeservedly, in Robert’s mind and ideally the audience’s as well).
What this has done is created Robert’s flaw, his internal conflict, which is that he’s defeatist. He doesn’t accept the short end of the stick, but he EXPECTS it.
And yet, he still shows resilience by refusing not to go to college, and so he pushes forth recklessly and is punished for the majority of the script for this choice.
“No, not this time!” That’s what’s important about that moment, and that needs to be brought out better.
Through the opening sequence, Robert is constantly pushing back against the unfairness of his parents’ preferential treatment of his brother. Cut back on that.
In those scenes, you have the VO for Robert to express his resentment of the unfairness of the situation. But within the actual scenes, you should have a little kid sadly accepting his runner-up lot in life, aware that it’s not fair, but you should hold back his blowing up until the tuition scene… because he had been holding on, waiting for that moment for so long, the light at the end of the tunnel. That’s what kept him going, kept him from turning bitter.
Having him freak out in the previous scene kills the impact of his freak-out when his long-awaited ticker out of there gets torn up in his face. That’s where he needs to finally, at long last, take a stand and say… “No, not this time!”
Like I got at before, there should be two instances of Robert accepting “But still…” Perhaps it’s related to Robert having to do chores that Tommy doesn’t have to, or Tommy being given more leniency on curfews, thus allowing him a more active dating life.
For instance, a scene where Tommy is allowed to stay out all night for prom (“Heck, here’s money for a hotel room! Go get ‘em, tiger!”) while Robert has to come home at 10PM to clean up after his parents’ dinner party. Robert’s prom date is understandably pissed and that’s when Tommy swoops in, charming her and thus, Tommy leaves with a prom date on each arm while Robert doesn’t even bother going at all.
But that third time, the tuition scene… “No, not this time!” This is where Robert takes a stand, and that impact has to be felt strongly by the audience. They have to be onboard because this is the where the precedent is set through which Good Judgment is met with Negative Results, thus proving Bad Luck.
So, Robert says “No, not this time!,” but… how is he going to make his stand?
He is going to do so by proving that anything his brother does he can do better.
He turns from his parents to his jerk of a brother to say he is going to enroll in the same school, he’s going to get better grades, he’s going to be the one bringing in the big bucks and he’s going to be the one getting the better girls. Tommy snarkily wishes him “Good luck on that.”
Cut to present day.
Now you’ve established a stronger conflict. Robert has set out to best his brother at everything… and through the course of the next few scenes, the audience watches as his lofty and sympathetic intentions totally collapse.
Though the lack of money is the catalyst through which his problems are exasperated, make sure to show how this leads to his failure on all fronts, all while his brother succeeds in every area where Robert, using Good Judgment, fails to get what he deserves; money, good grades, cute girls, a nice place to live, friends, etc.
This has lead Robert to a severe low-point where he is almost ready to accept forever that defeatist attitude that his parents did so much to foster.
It’s that moment on the brink of accepting that he’s a failure when Sarah comes into his life… and I would recommend making Sarah more instrumental in his securing of the job somehow, though I wouldn’t re-invent that scene totally, because his interaction with the kids really is adorable.
Try finding a way in that scene where… well, say Robert comes in there totally dejected, plops down next to Sarah, maybe not even looking at her yet (the audience hasn’t gotten a good look at her either), expressing his conviction that he’s not going to get this job to Sarah, and expressing how he just needs to accept that he’s always going to be unlucky.
Sarah responds in a way that shakes Robert out of his funk for a moment, getting his (and our) first good look at her as she gets up to go to talk with Mrs. Collins.
Then, she stops to whisper something into a kids ear and that begets the rest of the scene pretty similar to how it is now, the Mexican stand-off leading to the Royal Rumble… and, through that, Sarah was instrumental to turning the tide and bringing a little luck Robert’s way for once.
That definitely creates greater strength for the romance narrative, tying it into the overall conflict, as Sarah seems to Robert to be what’s going to bring him good luck (and she will, but not alone, as we’ll get into soon). It works better if she’s instrumental in his good luck rather than just being around when the first moment of good luck happens.
So that gets the script off on better footing, with a stronger conflict and a more active protagonist. A greater focus on besting the fortunate son, Tommy… and Tommy can make a strong antagonist who turns out, as it is in the script now, not to be the enemy at all, when Tommy finally accepts and tries to atone for the benefit he’s gained from their parents’ unacceptable behavior.
By the way, I really like how Tommy never seems to resent Robert’s behavior, the jealousy and sense of rivalry that Robert has, and that should remain even with Robert announcing his intentions to best his brother. What a terrific dynamic. There’s always a tension that Robert’s going to finally go too far and make Tommy finally turn mean on him, making it a true rivalry, and who knows whether that’d be for better or worse. The fact that Tommy’s so oblivious or unfazed by whatever Robert does is what can make for great comedy between these characters.
Now, on to my next major point…
This is about your THEME, which is clearly stated around the midpoint… “We Irish believe in luck, especially when you have the first three things.” Those three things being hope, faith and love.
Hope + Faith + Love = Luck.
Good. I liked how you did that with the necklace, by the way. Very smart.
Now, it’s time to strengthen this theme throughout the ENTIRE narrative. Demonstrate in the first act how he loses (or fails to achieve in the first place) Hope, Faith and Love, though not in a way that’s overt, where those things are defined that way. But, for this theme to have real impact, it should be clear in retrospect how Robert’s Bad Luck has always been the result of him not getting his ducks in a row in terms of the first three things. Hit those three beats in the scenes with the parents and again in the early college scenes as things fall apart for Robert.
In the third act, Hope, Faith and Love should be more clear, almost like a check list. Obviously, Sarah is the Love component, and Robert says as much, but there should be equally clear Hope and Faith components.
How you choose to define Hope and Faith could go plenty of ways. Faith could be finally trusting his brother to help him out in some way, or his parents finally believing that he is as worthy a son as the “elder” twin, etc.
Hope could be something like that moment before he threw the basketball… It misses and yet he comes away ecstatic, to the confusion of his brother. Robert explains how, rather than being resigned to the fact that he wouldn’t sink the basket as would’ve been par for the course, truly wanted it to go in and worked hard to make that happen. He realized that when he closed his eyes. What was important was his belief that he could, and the reason he didn’t was because he just needs to succeed at Faith and Love first.
There’s other ways to go with both of those, but if you really follow through on your theme, then the entire narrative will benefit. Whenever Robert fails throughout the film, especially in his attempts to best his brother in college in the first act that brings him to his low point, each instance should demonstrate a failure to muster (or attain) Hope, Faith or Love, thus leading to Bad Luck, despite what seemed like Good Judgment to the audience as well as Robert.
This is the focus I recommend you take, and of course I’ve thrown in a lot of specific suggestions to make my points. So, take and discard those as you wish, though hopefully you’ve committed yourself to the task of taking this script from something pleasant to something truly hilarious and emotionally resonant.
Good luck! read -
A review of Kira & the Imaginary Dinosaurby TheKeenGuy on 07/28/2009This feels like the start of what could be a good script, but it’s quite underdeveloped. Page notes first… Pg. 1 A three year-old protagonist is VERY young. Pg. 2 Names as similar as “KIRA” and “BINA” make for a difficult read. Pg. 11 In the first ten pages, I thought you were doing a clever thing where Kira in the fantasies in her head has more maturity, but behaves like... This feels like the start of what could be a good script, but it’s quite underdeveloped.
Page notes first…
Pg. 1 A three year-old protagonist is VERY young.
Pg. 2 Names as similar as “KIRA” and “BINA” make for a difficult read.
Pg. 11 In the first ten pages, I thought you were doing a clever thing where Kira in the fantasies in her head has more maturity, but behaves like a normal three year-old child in real life.
Now that I’ve read this conversation with the father, I’m greatly disappointed that you’ve gone the common route of writing a child that is vastly more mature than she should be for her age.
Pg. 17 The 11 page baby shower sequence could definitely be trimmed. Given that this is only 94 pages, hopefully there aren’t many other scenes that drag out much longer than they need to.
Pg. 19 I just noticed that you’re using CUT TO: between every scene. This isn’t needed, and given that the script is only 94 pages, it gives the distinct impression that you are padding the script rather than addressing the structural problems that’d cause the script to come up short of feature-length.
Pg. 19 “and notices she’s the only child there.” Not filmable as written.
Pg. 20 Finally, after FAR too long, this starts to feel like the family fantasy film that it started out as. This needs to come much sooner, or be bridged by some other set piece that’s going to entertain children.
Pg. 24 The “bad joke followed by comment on how bad the joke was” routine is overused.
Pg. 36 “Kira loosens up when she notices Joey is nervous too.” Again, something like this needs to be demonstrated through action or dialogue. Writing important internal thought processes into action lines doesn’t work.
Okay, finished reading, let’s get into the big picture...
The basic premise is similar to CALVIN & HOBBES, but there is an original story arc here that is a good idea. The Bina/fantasy element seems at first to be the cause of Kira’s social anxiety. She’s happier to retreat into this fantasy world than address real life. But, in fact, it turns out to be the tool by which Kira actually learns to become a more extroverted adolescent.
There are many problems that need to be addressed, though, if this premise is possibly going to achieve its potential. As it is, this script feels like merely a seedling.
To start with, the script is too slowly paced, and so at 94 pages, if you were to tighten this up, it would not achieve feature length.
The reason for that is because you did not properly develop a substantial external conflict to carry the plot. The birth of the sister simply does not serve to create substantial dramatic tension. Certainly, this is a real internal conflict that children face when their parents’ attention is suddenly divided, but the development of this conflict is shallow and un-extraordinary. It follows the logical beats to the logical conclusion.
With the fear of not graduating to pre-school, there’s finally some sort of ticking clock that makes Kira’s developmental process matter, but this comes late and still feels quite un-extraordinary.
So in come the sub-plots, like the unfit parents next door, which leads to a climax that has nothing to do with the film’s protagonist. This moment, of course, could stay as it is after a true climax for Kira. However, the Bina’s House scene and the revelation within does not resonate. The protag finally learns her lesson without having to face a major external conflict in order to do so.
I think part of the issue here is that the protag is so very young at the age of three. In some scenes, she feels that age, and in others she interacts with a canniness that seems quite unlikely. I can’t even imagine that there’s a three year-old actress capable of delivering the performance demanded by the script.
I would recommend stripping away much of her dialogue from the film and focusing much more on telling the story through action, especially within the animated sequences where you get the ability to play out the internal struggles of a child, too young to possibly properly express her emotional issues, through a highly colorful and symbolism-imbued world.
The script should focus more squarely on the animated scenes, developing a throughline with a clear external conflict there to be played from beginning to end, even if the backdrops change wildly as they do now.
Get away from much of what you’ve written live action, because the biggest problem you’ve got right now is that those scenes feel like a light family drama intended for adults, without provided much meat on the bones to truly captivate them, especially during the often infantile animated scenes. You might be aiming for both audiences, but right now you miss both.
If this is going to be a family film, you especially go too far in how you play out the Susan/Kurt storyline. You could tell the same story at a much more family-friendly level of restraint and innuendo.
So, in terms of the narrative, I think this is a story that could only have success with a lot more development. There are not a lot of places you can go with a script that requires this amount of animation, as many animation studios develop in-house, so the bar is set very high.
Good luck! read -
A review of The Power of Suggestionby TheKeenGuy on 07/27/2009There’s potential here, but there's the need for much improvement, primarily in how you construct characters to maximize the potential of the premise. First, the page notes… Pg. 1 A deadly awful opening action line, introducing four characters in one giant paragraph and establishing information (beyond character description) that should be conveyed through actual action and... There’s potential here, but there's the need for much improvement, primarily in how you construct characters to maximize the potential of the premise.
First, the page notes…
Pg. 1 A deadly awful opening action line, introducing four characters in one giant paragraph and establishing information (beyond character description) that should be conveyed through actual action and dialogue.
It’s the kind of opening that would very easily either drive away experienced readers, or at least give the initial impression that this going to be the unpromising work of an amateur.
Pg. 1 Find natural ways to introduce character names in dialogue.
Pg. 2 “He threw up in my mouth.” Such a disgusting image created in the audience’s mind, and it gives the impression that we are going to later see disgusting actions like this occur. If this isn’t a gross-out comedy, tone this down.
Pg. 9 “but Chad takes it personal and is a dick” How many pages do we need to understand how awful Chad is? Until you provide some sympathetic reason why Cali is with him, it’s going to be difficult for the audience to identify with her. Until then, it seems like she’s causing her own problems for no good reason by being with him.
Pg. 12 “She’s nervous about going…” There’s no reason to include comments like these in the action lines.
Pg. 20 Cut out all the “she decides” kind of stuff in action dialogue. Cut into the phone call in the middle of the conversation.
Pg. 24 “We’ll see.” This is the best kind of defense that Cali has for dating the guy? Cali has come across as vapid and erratic so far.
Pg. 50 “She then washes her hair several times.” This, like many of your action lines, is written in a lazy and thoughtless way. It doesn’t indicate what the audience actually sees, nor does it get across the joke. A specific description of lathering and rinsing until the bottle runs empty would nail it.
Pg. 55 “We have to stop meeting like this.” Indeed. The way you have worked this Carter character by having him bump into her four random times is lazy. No clear attempt to develop the Carter character and work him into the first half of the narrative naturally.
Pg. 109 Explaining Chad’s motivations in action lines because it doesn’t make sense in what is seen and heard means that the scene will not make sense when an audience sees it on screen… so it does no good to explain the motivations to the reader. When you find yourself doing that, you need to rewrite the scene.
Now, onto the big picture…
There are some funny scenes in this script, but there’s a LOT of work that would need to be done to strengthen this narrative.
To start with, there is a large disconnect between the high concept comic premise that drives the second act and the character dramedy that frames it in the first and third acts. This is the result of a weakness in developing your characters.
The major problem is that Cali’s internal conflict does not have a clear relationship with the external conflict.
As you establish her, Cali has accepted awful situations in her life for no good reason. As I pointed out, there’s never an understanding of why she was ever with Chad. It seems that you have simply developed that, along with the awful boss, as the problems that Cali has to overcome… and there’s no doubt she will, because there is no true antagonistic force preventing her from accomplishing whatever she wants.
She does not listen to the advice of her friends (thinly sketched and too closely resembling the SEX AND THE CITY cadre), but not because she is closed off from suggestions. We see that she’s a pushover for the bad people in her life and yet stubborn in the face of making any changes to her life.
So, when the “power of suggestion” element suddenly comes into play in the second act, it’s really a retread of YES MAN in that it’s all about getting the protag to open herself up to trying new things.
So much of what happens then is totally off the spine of the thin amount of external conflicts you developed in the first act. These suggestions coming from all sources simply cause little trainwreck situations time after time.
You throw the Carter character in at random times, which I already criticized in the page notes, and then explain away the fact that he’s inexplicably attracted to this woman, who from his perspective would seem totally deranged and unsympathetic, because he’s a comedian and, I suppose, must therefore be drawn to wackiness.
Their romance subplot is not built on any strong conflict, which is why you had to use a cop-out and invent a conflict in the third act with the miscommunication as Chad leaves the apartment.
There’s no strong thematic idea that drives that or any conflict… merely inconvenient happenstance from scene to scene. That’s why, once Cali rejects the “power of suggestion” as the third act starts, you had to invent crises to create a climax.
Like I’ve been getting at, the external conflict has to be in direct relationship with the internal conflict
Here’s the thing with a high concept premise like this…
It’s a matter of either starving of overfeeding the internal conflict.
In LIAR LIAR, it’s starvation. Taking away the protag’s crutch. A man who uses lies to get his way is robbed of that ability.
In BIG, it’s overfeeding. Giving the protag what they wanted in spades. A kid who wants to grow up too soon must now figure out how to cope with being an adult.
When it comes to the “power of suggestion,” it’s either that the protag is too prone to sheep mentality that’s taking her towards a cliff and it’s taken to its extreme (overfeeding) or the protag is so tunnel-visioned in doing things her own way towards some specific goal that this throws her totally off her trajectory (starvation).
As it is, the script is trying to do a little of both, and it does not and will not possibly work. It’s why a major overhaul of the script is necessary to make it work, even though some the effective set pieces from the second act could still remain.
By the way, as is, this would be R rated without question, but feels relatively tame, like it’s jumping between family comedy and sex farce from scene to scene. I have no idea what market you are aiming for, but right now you’re missing both, so the film needs to be nudged in one direction or the other, even if not to the extreme.
Good luck! read -
A review of Snow Angelby TheKeenGuy on 07/14/2009Starting with page notes, mostly contained to the first act, as I felt the narrative lost its way quickly after that, dealing with very little substantive conflict in the second act, thus forcing invented conflicts to bring the story to a climax in the third… Pg. 1 Including the town name in the first slug isn’t needed. Also, setting it in a town called “Hopedale” gives a... Starting with page notes, mostly contained to the first act, as I felt the narrative lost its way quickly after that, dealing with very little substantive conflict in the second act, thus forcing invented conflicts to bring the story to a climax in the third…
Pg. 1 Including the town name in the first slug isn’t needed. Also, setting it in a town called “Hopedale” gives a bad first impression, hinting that this is going to be a script that uses symbolism with a capital S.
Pg. 6 “I can’t believe it’s been a year since the accident.” This is terribly obvious exposition, and it’s information we already know.
Pg. 6 “strengthening her confused resolved” How exactly does an actor express this physically? Convey information through actions, not by demanding that the actor somehow convey specific complex emotions through facial expressions and otherwise unspecified body language.
Pg. 8 “he spots a photo of Jude and a one-way train ticket” That doesn’t really work. Let each thing have its beat. Digging through the wallet, he pulls out a photo of Jude, drops it. Pulls out a “ONE-WAY” train ticket, drops it. Finds the money, pockets it.
Derek’s actions throughout the scene continue to be very awkward, like shoving the ten back in the purse instead of just letting it drift down in front of her.
Cut “tries to hide his concern” and convey that information through dialogue or, preferably, action.
Pg. 13 “and mouths ‘Thank You.’” This script plays with no subtlety at all so far.
Pg. 21 “I’ll try to be, honey.” I strongly recommend getting away from this kind of unrealistic, awkward, on-the-nose speaking of what should be subtext. This has been the case for the majority of the script so far.
Pg. 26 “But your little boy is an angel.” Awkward and unrealistic.
Pg. 27 “I know I can’t show off my tattoos in a law office. Even if it’s just a temp job.” Bad exposition. That’s enough with the specific examples.
Pg. 85 “They have a suspect in Jude’s case. Finally.” Finally, indeed. Throughout the endlessly meandering second act with almost no external conflict, I felt certain that some sudden incident or revelation would be invented in the third act to force the story to a climax without really having built the conflict into the plot.
Okay, I’ve finished reading, let’s get into the big picture…
You’ve got Anna’s inner conflict established from the very beginning, that she’s been driven to the point of suicide because of her son’s death. And within the first ten pages, she hits her lowest point and then, upon meeting Max, immediately rebounds. From the mouthed “thank you” onward, things just continue to improve for her throughout the second act without major setbacks or obstacles.
What you need is a strong external conflict, one that threatens to hold back her progress… and you don’t have one.
What you do have is Jewli, the straw man, created with the same kind of contempt that Anna shows in response to her.
It’s not that Jewli isn’t representative of most girls of her type, it’s that she is not a remotely realistic character. At first, she’s an irredeemably awful character that serves as a constant source of frustration for Anna, but never really serves to provide conflict… she merely threatens to cause it.
And then, within the second act, you flip Jewli so quickly and to such an extreme that again it completely lacks credulity. One day at the bakery, and she suddenly softens and recedes into the background, doing little more than to serve as a tool for the overt Christian propaganda later in the script.
This leaves the narrative with virtually no overarching external conflict at all, which is why you begin to pile it on from out of nowhere in the third act, beginning with the confrontation with Jude’s killer, and then having Anna taken down by a senseless act of violence totally off the spine of the narrative. It’s pure melodrama.
Anna and Max are pretty well-developed characters, although too often, you develop them through unrealistic on-the-nose exposition and unfilmable action lines. These can work alright on the page and create an emotional experience for the reader, but will fall flat on the screen where the dialogue will sound false and hollow and the visuals are not designed to communicate the information intended.
I don’t think this story is without potential, though.
A woman who has lost her child, who more specifically believes that she failed to save her child, is ready to throw herself to her death when another child comes into her life, believing Anna is there to help her.
Suddenly, she attaches onto this child right away, seeing this as her chance to regain the opportunity she lost.
The only problem, this girl already has a mother, and… here’s where you missed the key element, the mother REJECTS THE HELP.
Outright. Completely.
That’s the necessary external conflict, and it’s a great one. You laid the groundwork for it, but hardly exploited its potential at all.
To make it work, you need to redesign Jewli with the care and empathy that you provided Anna and Max.
Even though Jewli is at a terrible place in her life, there need to be logic in her beliefs and actions. It doesn’t work to have a character who completely resents her child, and yet keeps her, without deeply exploring the psychology behind that in a way that’s as probative and understanding.
What compels Jewli to keep and raise Max, even in a passive way?
Perhaps she’s a lapsed Christian. Imagine that she was raped as a teen but believed that abortion would be the wrong choice. She kept the child, but the child only created more problems for her, costing her everything in her own life.
Then I could better understand why she hates the child, and also why she still holds onto the child out of some deeply bound spiritual belief, hit upon later in the script, that it would be wrong to abandon her. She carries Max like a penance, and she can’t understand why she’s still being punished. Her contempt for Max and Anna and everyone else, even herself, is a hatred for what she feels God unfairly wrought on her.
With that kind of backstory, Jewli could surely be just as strong a character as Anna, with just as profound a character arc as she serves as an antagonist, rebuffing Anna’s efforts to do what she thinks will help to improve Max’s life, because Jewli feels that giving up Max to Anna will be the final blow. The proof that she is a failure and, deep in her subconscious mind, unworthy of God’s love.
As Anna is convinced that helping Max is her key to redemption, there’s so much you can do with that… including zeroing in, as you enter the third act, on the fact that she’s really trying to use Max as a patch, a replacement of her child, instead of truly confronting the real issue, which is that she could not accept her helplessness in the face of great tragedy, needlessly taking responsibility for what could not be avoided.
At the same time, Jewli doesn’t realize that Anna isn’t the next major problem in her life. Anna is the angel finally sent to bring relief, to make things right. But like the old joke about the preacher in the flood refusing the car and the boat and the helicopter, Jewli didn’t realize that God’s helping hand comes in the form of those around you.
Finally, in the third act, the culmination of these two conflicts, this would be the time, at the very brink of the climax, to put Max in the path of death (be it another speeding car or the drive-by or whatever), and Anna is helpless again to reach Max, but it’s Jewli who takes the fatal blow as a means of redemption and reconciliation with both her daughter and her God. And this time around, with the final words from a dying Jewli to her, Anna is able to accept that these tragedies are inevitable and that one must soldier through to help make things better where they can.
With that, you have a much more conflict-driven film, more thematically sound, and you have some positive and profound Christian messages that could be delivered without the characters ever having to sermonize, as is done too often in the current draft.
Good luck! read -
A review of Older Draftby TheKeenGuy on 07/07/2009Page notes first, where I start to express my reservations, and then I go into more detail afterwards… Pg. 1 A few things struck me odd on the first page. You throw in Ashley’s OS comment without context, and then suddenly Matthew is on a bike without indication that we have jumped ahead in time. Given that you are aiming for a fast and easy read, it’d be a good idea to... Page notes first, where I start to express my reservations, and then I go into more detail afterwards…
Pg. 1 A few things struck me odd on the first page. You throw in Ashley’s OS comment without context, and then suddenly Matthew is on a bike without indication that we have jumped ahead in time. Given that you are aiming for a fast and easy read, it’d be a good idea to get off on the right foot and make sure that you the reader can quickly get their bearings.
Also, using a parenthetical at the end of dialogue is a bit of an oddity.
Pg. 6 “What did I say about that nickname?” I imagine this line is important, and it drags on way too long. Boil it down to what’s really important, both to make it more natural and really stick with the audience.
Pg. 8 “You’re that retarded kid that can’t feel anything, right?” That’s a weak way of providing that exposition, especially since you so easily laid the groundwork for a much more clever way of drawing it out when Billy noticed that the burning of the cigarette wasn’t hurting Matthew.
Pg. 17 Is this really going to be blamed totally on Matthew when Rochelle so recklessly rushed them out of the house surrounded by wasps without any protection for Ashley? Hopefully, this is addressed and not just blamed on Matthew.
Right now, I can’t tell if we are supposed to have any sympathy for Rochelle at all.
Pg. 26 “I’ll be proud that I got him there.” Certainly, we can understand her thinking, but not sympathize as she’s clearly not being reasonable.
Rochelle so far is shaping up as the protagonist much more than Matthew, and she comes across as shrill, reckless and unreasonable.
The focus needs to either be more on Matthew from the get-go or this needs to change.
Pg. 29 Maybe I don’t spend enough time around five year olds, but I can’t imagine them having the ability to carry a conversation the level of maturity (not adult-like, at least) that Ashley does.
Pg. 34 “That won’t do.” Really? A CPS worker and cops are going to cave to the petulant resistance of a five year-old girl?
Pg. 35 “you… sadistic… evil, narcissistic witch.” Certainly, nothing we know so far about Laura makes this accusation feel reasonable.
Given the son’s condition, and his rebellious nature, it doesn’t really make sense to me that she does things like send this brittle nine year-old and five year-old out to walk alone to school in the morning.
She doesn’t really come across as over-protective at all. It seems to me that she gives the kid too much free reign, and merely punishes him when he messes up.
So I have to wonder again, is the reader supposed to dislike Rochelle so greatly? Is it not at all what you intend when someone gets this far into the story and thinks maybe the kids should be taken away from her?
Pg. 36 “Are you still proud that you got him there?” This is such a callous thing for Dean to say at that very moment, that it really surprises me that Rochelle doesn’t react with furor.
Pg. 46 The focus is starting to turn more on the kids now, but Ashley stands out more as an active protag trying to protect Matthew. Matthew’s really the conflict embodied in a character in this narrative so far.
Pg. 66 “What did I tell you about picking fights?” For what reason would neither Matthew nor Ashley protest this?
Pg. 71 “Dean, Matthew was in a fight…” There’s no reason for the exposition all over again. Get into this scene in the middle of the call.
Pg. 78 “But I didn’t take it.” So, he won’t let Ashley take responsibility… but he refuses to take responsibility himself? I guess you could write off the lack of logic in this to him being a nervous kid, if that’s what you intended.
Pg. 86 “Okay. I call a truce.” This has entered fantasy land in terms of how a child inflicting damage on himself would be professionally handled.
Certainly, with the incompetence that Laura is exhibiting, it would be a profound insult to Child Protective Services if you have not done something later in the script to distance her actions from their protocol.
Otherwise, you have created a straw man version of that organization to lambaste for the sake of melodrama, and that’s not fair to an organization that may be imperfect but has done a lot of good.
Pg. 106 Again, Laura not having any kind of smoke alarm system in this house that holds foster children is fantasy land. It’s unrealistic incompetence for the sake of melodrama.
Okay, I’ve finished the script, so let’s get into the big picture…
To start with, this isn’t a family film by any stretch of the imagination, unless you mean that in the literal sense that it is about a family. It’s a brutal drama that would not be appropriate for children.
The concept is a very interesting one. A child who feels no pain and, as a result, has no fear, but is more vulnerable than your average child. Easy to create a compelling conflict out of that.
The direction you chose to take, though, does not work.
In the first act, we meet the haggard, belligerent mother who has been dealing with this for nine years, and there are more reasons given to detest her than sympathize with her.
The conflict between her and Matthew is an interesting one, not too dissimilar to that of FINDING NEMO, but it’s all but abandoned in the second act in favor of a conflict between Laura and Rochelle.
The children are stripped away from Rochelle and she recedes into the background, spinning wheels while the second act is all about foolish Laura coming to realize that she has no idea how to deal with this child either and should have never attempted to come in between a child and a mother who naturally knows best.
Of course, to do this, you turned Laura into a mockery, someone completely incompetent in dealing with problematic children for reasons that have nothing to do with the conflict established between her and Rochelle about the proper way to deal with Matthew’s unique condition.
Then, that whole issue is left in the air after Matthew dies, which I’ll get into in more detail later.
So much of the drama in the script is simply based on characters communicating with each other poorly so that a misconception is created in order to cause external conflicts… rather than truly addressing real conflicts of opposing sympathetic view points.
Had Laura been a competent, fair representation of a CPS worker looking out for the best interests of the child, you could have created a much stronger, more realistic conflict centered around the idea, what should be the thematic core of the script… how can anyone keep a child like this safe without taking away his freedom?
(Although, in the end, the assertion made is that it doesn’t really matter, because the guiding hand of fate already has a plan for us. Again, I’m getting to that soon.)
Of course, we still need to look at this script from the perspective of Matthew, who is the central character around which the conflict is based. However, it’s not easy for me to see him as the protagonist, because while he has an engaging conflict and goal, the whole thing gets overshadowed by the Rochelle/Laura conflict in a way that muddies his arc, which is developed too slowly, shallowly and then virtually abandoned.
The focus should turn much more greatly onto Matthew, because his conflict is what’s so compelling. Get away from the scenes featuring the adults alone where it’s not about Matthew and the key thematic idea of Safety vs. Freedom.
Don’t create melodrama that doesn’t serve that thematic idea. There’s no need for the labored miscommunications that get Matthew punished by Laura, such as the incident with the stolen money. It’s an emotional situation, but it doesn’t serve the theme. It’s drama without purpose.
One major problem comes with the climax (yes, it’s finally time to address that), when Matthew sacrifices himself in the fire to save his sister. It was obvious something like this was going to happen in the third act because of the amount of time spent on the bedtime story in the first act.
The fire is a pretty random event (which wouldn’t realistically play out the way you had it, as I’ve already pointed out). While Matthew gets some level of closure believing he has achieved the superhero status he was seeking, it was surprising to me that his condition was entirely irrelevant to his rescue of his sister, but merely gave us the comfort of knowing that his death was painless.
Though it comes at the end of an emotional rollercoaster, and Matthew has arced in a few significant ways, the fact that this incident is so random a disconnected from the conflict is a problem.
The plot wasn’t about whether Matthew would ever gain the bravery to do a self-sacrificing act to save someone else, and that act didn’t resolve any conflicts in this script so much as render them obsolete
Also, if the whole point of the script really is about the guiding hand of fate’s plan for us (you can call it destiny or God or whatever) that Dean talks about at the end, you really need to build that into the plot better, and once again, that final climax would require Matthew specifically being able to save his sister in a way no one else could as a result of his condition… and not just because he has the special knowledge of where she is, didn’t communicate it to the firemen properly, and therefore decided that he should instead sneak in and do it himself.
More than anything else, if you were to opt to keep things essentially like they are, I would still implore you to do some extensive research on CPS, as presenting the Laura character more fairly and realistically could only help to improve the script.
If the intention was to have sympathized with Rochelle from the very beginning, then the first act is an abject failure in that regard… but I suspect that it was through Laura’s own frustrations that the audience was supposed to better understand what Rochelle had gone through and why she made the choices she did.
If that’s the case, then the failure is in the fact that, if Laura is the stand-in for the audience disgusted by Rochelle in the first act, then it’s a great insult to the audience when Laura turns out to be so increasingly and incredibly foolish as the script goes on in order to make Rochelle seem better by comparison without ever really having to justify her actions.
Of course, maybe Dean had helped Rochelle see the folly of her ways and maybe she was going to be a better mom in some way when she regained custody… but that darn fire again, I guess we’ll never know.
So, though it looks like you’ve already done some extensive rewrites, I would suggest another overhaul, because with an adult drama like this that lacks a highly commercial hook, the bar is set incredibly high to execute it perfectly.
Good luck! read
Comments About TheKeenGuy 115
-
chriscarvill on 11/05/2012
G'day. Thanks for the advice re short film scripts. I actually wasn't comfortable having it uploaded, as I felt rather cheapened (perhaps, because it was a take on a cult movie). Good luck with your screenwriting. Seems you're edging closer and closer to industry recognition. Chris Carvill. -
eastb on 09/16/2012
Comment deleted by TheKeenGuy -
Jeremy on 05/29/2011
Oh, I still think you should review it. :) -
Karl Gorman on 05/26/2011
The message board certainly does need you, it seems. Thanks for that advice. - Karl Gorman. -
crossroads79 on 05/11/2011
You're very welcome man, I'm happy to get more specific if you're interested. Just send me a message instead of clogging up the comment section. I really enjoyed the read, just left me a bit befuddled.
That's funny about forgetting that you shot someone in the ass. As if you actually did it...
BTW -- I hope you enjoy Ashland and look forward to your thoughts/comments. Take care. -
wanderingmbhorn on 05/10/2011
Keen Guy,
Thanks a million for one of the most comprehensive reviews I've ever received. Not just that, but you hit the nail on the head with just about every point. After realizing the 'message' I was sending about parapalegics, I decided to revamp my ending in a way that makes Sam a more active protagonist and gives him a sense of control over his own life. That said, I'm going to look to incorporate some of your specific suggestions, as they fit the direction I'm going with the story so well.
Thanks again!
John -
Karl Gorman on 04/09/2011
First off, thank you for your substantial response to my quote on the message board.
It's given me a lot to think about.
For the record, I'm not trying to deflect criticizm. I'm merely trying to find a rationale to something which - until your response and some others - didn't make sense to me.
But I confess, the briefness of my quote might have sounded like an attempt at "deflecting criticizm."
But thanks again.
- Karl Gorman. -
CrabbyLady on 03/15/2011
Are you trying to set me up or something? Just read what you're assigned then, and don't worry about anything else. If the "Final" version gets assigned to you, so be it.
Otherwise, select it and review it without getting a credit. -
CrabbyLady on 03/15/2011
Hey there: So sorry - I'm pretty good at writing to everyone - didn't mean to ignore you!
I prefer you to read the "Final" but whatever works for you. The first is full of formatting and spelling errors (my bad - in too much of a rush to get it on the site) but the second isn't too bad (still needs some work).
But tell me what you think. Thanks! :) -
Gary Mark Lee on 03/14/2011
thanks for the info on "Tarzan" all the best to you on your projects.
Gary
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About TheKeenGuy 115
-
Quote
G'day. Thanks for the advice re short film scripts. I actually wasn't comfortable having it uploaded, as I felt rather cheapened (perhaps, because it was a take on a cult movie). Good luck with your screenwriting. Seems you're edging closer and closer to industry recognition. Chris Carvill.
-
Quote
Comment deleted by TheKeenGuy
-
Quote
Oh, I still think you should review it. :)
+ more commentschriscarvill on 11/05/2012
eastb on 09/16/2012
Jeremy on 05/29/2011