Gone Girl had a disappointing final act. So Fincher had author Flynn rewrite it for the movie. Will it save the film?
In the five years since this site began, it’s hard to believe that I STILL haven’t written an article about the third act. I think it’s because the third act is kinda scary. It’s easy to set up a story. The middle act is tough, however I’ve written a couple of articles demystifying the process. But with final acts, it feels like every one is a little different. They’re sort of like their own little organisms, evolving and changing in indefinably unique ways, packed with previously established variables that are constantly fighting against one another, and it’s hard to bring all of that together in a streamlined package.
Blake Snyder does a really good job breaking down the third act, and his methods are a good place to start, but what I’ve found is that his approach mostly applies to comedies and romantic comedies, where the audience is aware of the exaggerated structure of the moment (hero loses the girl, is at his lowest point) but doesn’t mind. They come to see these movies because they like laughing and seeing the guy get the girl, so they don’t need some genius plot point to keep them invested.
With that said, I think it’s a good idea to have a baseline approach to your third act. It’s the same thing as if you’re building a house. You want to get the blueprints in order. But you still need to keep the option open of adding a breakfast nook over here, or moving the kitchen over to the other side of the main room. So here’s how a prototypical third act should be structured. It doesn’t mean that your act should be structured the same way. It just means it’s a starting point.
THE GOAL
Without question, your third act is going to be a billion times easier to write if your main character is pursuing a goal, preferably since the beginning of the film. “John McClane must save his wife from terrorists” makes for a much easier-to-write ending than “John McClane tries to figure out his life” because we, the writer, know exactly how to construct the finale. John McClane is either going to save his wife or he’s going to fail to save his wife. Either way, we have an ending. What’s the ending for “John McClane tries to figure out his life?” It’s hard to know because that scenario is so open-ended. The less clear your main character’s objective (goal) is in the story, the harder it will be to write a third act. Because how do you resolve something if it’s unclear what your hero is trying to resolve?
THE LOWEST POINT
To write a third act, you have to know where your main character is when he goes into the act. While this isn’t a hard and fast rule, typically, putting your hero at his lowest point at the end of act two is a great place to segue into the third act. In other words, it should appear at this point in the story that your main character has FAILED AT HIS/HER GOAL (Once Sandra Bullock gets to the Chinese module in GRAVITY, that’s it. Air is running out. She doesn’t understand the system. There are no other options). Either that, or something really devastating should shake your hero (i.e. his best friend and mentor dies – Obi-Wan in Star Wars). The point is, it should feel like things are really really down. When you do this, the audience responds with, “Oh no! But this can’t be. I don’t want our hero to give up. They have to keep trying. Keep trying, hero!” Which is exactly where you want them!
REGROUP
The beginning of the third act (anywhere from 1-4 scenes) becomes the “Regroup” phase. This phase often has to deal with your hero’s flaw, which is why it works so well in comedies or romantic comedies, where flaws are so dominant . If your hero is selfish, he might reflect on all the people he was selfish to, apologize, and move forward. But if this is an action film, it might simply mean talking through the terrible “lowest point” thing that just happened (Luke discussing the death of Obi-Wan with Han) and then getting back to it. Your hero was just at the lowest point in his/her life. Obviously, he needs a couple of scenes to regroup.
THE PLAN
Assuming we’re still talking about a hero with a goal, now that they’ve regrouped, they tend to have that “realization” where they’re going to give this goal one last shot. This, of course, necessitates a plan. We see this in romantic comedies all the time, where the main character plans some elaborate surprise for the girl, or figures out a way to crash the big party or big wedding. In action films, it’s a little more technical. The character has to come up with a plan to save the girl, or take down the villain, or both. In The Matrix, Neo needs to save Morpheus. He tells Trinity the plan, they go outfit themselves with guns from the Matrix White-Verse, and they go in there to get Morpheus.
THE CLIMAX SCENE
This should be the most important scene in your entire script. It’s where the hero takes on the bad guy or tries to get the girl back. You should try and make this scene big and original. Give us a take on it that we’ve never seen in movies before. Will that be hard? Of course. But if you’re rehashing your CLIMAX SCENE of all scenes?? The biggest and most important scene in the entire screenplay? You might as well give up screenwriting right now. If there is any scene you need to challenge yourself on, that you need to ask, “Is this the best I can possibly do for this scene?” and honestly answer yes? This is that scene!
THE LOWER THAN LOWEST POINT
During the climax scene, there should be one last moment where it looks like your hero has failed, that the villain has defeated him (or the girl says no to him). Let’s be real. What you’re really doing here is you’re fucking with your audience. You’re making them go, “Nooooooo! But I thought they were going to get together!” This is a GOOD THING. You want to fuck with your audience in the final act. Make them think their hero has failed. I mean, Neo actually DIES in the final battle in The Matrix. He dies! So yeah, you can go really low with this “true lowest point.” If the final battle or confrontational or “get-the-girl” moment is too easy for our hero, we’ll be bored. We want to see him have to work for it. That’s what makes it so rewarding when he finally succeeds!
FLAWS
Remember that in addition to all this external stuff that’s going on in the third act (getting the girl, killing the bad guy, stopping the asteroid from hitting earth), your protagonist should be dealing with something on an internal level as well. A character battling their biggest flaw on the biggest stage is usually what pulls audiences and readers in on an emotional level, so it’s highly advisable that you do this. Of course, this means establishing the flaw all the way back in Act 1. If you’ve done that, then try to tie the big external goal into your character’s internal flaw. So Neo’s flaw is that he doesn’t believe in himself. The only way he’ll be able to defeat the villain, then, is to achieve this belief. Sandra Bullock’s flaw in Gravity is that she doesn’t have the true will to live ever since her daughter died. She must find that will in the Chinese shuttle module if she’s going to survive. If you do this really well, you can have your main character overcome his flaw, but fail at his objective, and still leave the audience happy (Rocky).
PAYOFFS
Remember that the third act should be Payoff Haven. You should set up a half a dozen things ahead of time that should all get some payin’ off here in the finale. The best payoffs are wrapped into that final climactic scene. I mean who doesn’t sh*t their pants when Warden Norton (Shawshank spoiler) takes down that poster from the wall in Andy Dufresne’s cell? But really, the entire third act should be about payoffs, since almost by definition, your first two acts are setups.
OBSTACLES AND CONFLICT
A mistake a lot of beginner writers make is they make the third act too easy for their heroes. The third act should be LOADED with obstacles and conflict, things getting in the way of your hero achieving his/her goal. Maybe they get caught (Raiders), maybe they die (The Matrix), maybe the shuttle module sinks when it finally gets back to earth and your heroine is in danger of drowning (Gravity). The closer you get to the climax, the thicker you should lay on the obstacles, and then when the climactic scene comes, make it REALLY REALLY hard on them. Make them have to earn it!
NON-TRADITIONAL THIRD ACTS (CHARACTER PIECES)
So what happens if you don’t have that clear goal for your third act? Chances are, you’re writing a character piece. While this could probably benefit from an entire article of its own, basically, character pieces still have goals that must be met, they’re just either unknown to the hero or relationship-related. Character pieces are first and foremost about characters overcoming their flaws. So if your hero is selfish, your final act should be built around a high-stakes scenario where that flaw will be challenged. Also, character piece third acts are about resolving relationship issues. If two characters have a complicated past stemming from some problem they both haven’t been able to get over, the final act should have them face this issue once and for all. Often times, these two areas will overlap. In other words, maybe the issue these two characters have always had is that he’s always put his own needs over the needs of the family. The final climactic scene then, has him deciding whether to go off to some huge opportunity or stay here and takes care of the family. The scenario then resolves the character flaw and the relationship problem in one fell swoop! (note: Preferably, you are doing this in goal-oriented movies as well)
While that’s certainly not everything, it’s most of what you need to know. But I admit, while all of this stuff is fun to talk about in a vacuum, it becomes a lot trickier when you’re trying to apply it to your own screenplay. That’s because, as I stated at the beginning, each script is unique. Indiana Jones is tied up for the big climax of Raiders. That’s such a weird third act choice. In Back To The Future, George McFly’s flaw is way more important than our hero, Marty McFly’s, flaw. When is the “lowest point before the third act” in Star Wars? Is it when they’re in the Trash Compactor about to be turned into Star Wars peanut butter? Or is at after they escape the Death Star? I think that’s debatable. John McClane never formulates a plan to take on Hanz in the climax. He just ends up there. The point is, when you get into your third act, you have to be flexible. Use the above as a guide, but don’t follow it exactly. A lot of times, what makes a third act memorable is its imperfections, because it’s its imperfections that make it unpredictable. If you have any third act tips of your own, please leave them in the comments section. Wouldn’t mind learning a few more things about this challenging act myself!
Genre: Dark Comedy/Period
Premise: An advertising executive shooting a commercial based on the famous literary character, Don Quixote, soon finds himself transported to the 17th century, becoming the sidekick of the real Don Quixote.
About: For those unfamiliar with this project, it’s one of the most famous in film history mainly because it embodied the reality of just how hard it is to make movies. The almost-film, originally starring Johnny Depp, was famously chronicled in the 2002 documentary “Lost in La Mancha.” It’s one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen and an absolute must for anybody in the entertainment industry. The film ran into every kind of obstacle possible (aging actors unable to do key scenes, floods, a complicated financing situation with dozens of separate investors, delays upon delays, a star with a quickly depleting scheduling window) until it was clear that there was no way it could continue. All this was made worse by the fact that it was director Terry Gilliam’s passion project. There is no one on earth who wanted to make a single movie as much as Gilliam wanted to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Well, good news, folks. While it was assumed the movie would be lost forever, Gilliam is hopping back onboard, and making the film his next project! Hooray for the power of perseverance! The original Don Quixote novel, published in 1605, is considered by some to be the greatest literary work ever written.
Writer: Terry Gilliam & Tony Grisoni (based on the character created by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra)
Details: 113 pages (May 15th, 2000 draft)
Do I feel guilty that I’ve read Angels and Demons but not Don Quixote? Of course I do. But with so much stuff to read, I try to keep my historic cut-off at 300 years (correct, I haven’t read the Bible, either). But hey, if this isn’t more proof of yesterday’s “what I learned” section (adapt old books) I don’t know what is!
Despite that, this would be one of my most anticipated films of the decade, only because I know the history behind it. I want to see Gilliam realize his dream. I don’t think I’ve watched anything as gut-wrenching as aging actor Jean Rochefort (as Quixote) trying to ride that horse in “La Mancha.” It was clear he wanted so badly to do it, but was in so much pain, that even the slightest movement was unbearable. You could see Gilliam wanting to keep going, his manic determination fogging his perception. If not for the first assistant director calling a stop to it, he might have gone on. The reason that moment was so powerful was because it embodies moviemaking as a whole. The pressure and stakes are so high, you push beyond all reason, knowing that if you don’t, it could all fall apart. Which is exactly what happened in this case.
Toby Grosini is your typical douchebag advertising exec. He’s shooting a commercial in Spain for a dying power company based on the famous character Don Quixote. Normally, all Toby has to worry about is how many zeroes are in his bank account. But with the commercial’s shoot becoming more and more hectic, he’s starting to worry if he can keep it together.
One day, a local gypsy convinces him to visit a nearby castle, where he meets an old man claiming to be the real Don Quixote. That is correct – the man believes himself to be 400 years old. He certainly looks it, but Toby obviously thinks he’s a crackpot. That is until he wakes up the next day in the year 1605!
That same man is now calling him Sancho Panza (Quixote’s famous peasant sidekick from the book). Toby, in turn, keeps calling Fake Quixote crazy. But if that’s the case, why the hell does everything look so 1600s?? No sooner does this “reality” start to hit him than the duo is marauded by the local police. Some nearby prisoners get wrapped up in the fight and a straight-up brawl ensues.
Quixote is injured, so Toby takes him to a local Inn. Quixote then gives him a list of ingredients to get so he can put together a healing medicine. Only afterwards does Toby learn this “medicine” is some sort of immortal elixir, and as long as you take it, you never die.
Eventually, Toby gets fed up playing this game with Quixote and wants to go home. Of course, it’s unclear where home is. At times he believes this whole thing is a ruse. Not only do some of the commercial crew he worked with appear as 17th century characters (not unlike The Wizard of Oz), but he inconsistently transports back to the modern day with no rhyme or reason. Are they drugging him? What’s going on??
Toby finally betrays Quixote to escape the madness and makes it back to the modern world for good (where he learns that he was hit by a car – hence why this all might have been happening). But as he feels worse and worse about screwing his elder imaginary buddy over, he vows to find a way back to the fake and/or real world and save him before it’s too late.
Uhhhh, okaaaaa-y.
Not really sure how to address this one. They say that honesty is the best policy so let’s start with that. This looks to be an excuse for two totally deranged creative minds (Gilliam and Depp) to dick around. Granted, if there were two minds I would pay to see dick around for two hours, these two would be at the top of the list. Still, this one felt like it was conceived in the mind of an Alzheimer’s patient. It was so scattershot and all over the place, you never knew which way was ‘sane.’
Here’s the thing. Terry Gilliam loves to explore the theme of reality. What’s real? What’s in our heads? Is there a difference? Do we live in the matrix? All that good stuff. We saw it with Twelve Monkeys. We saw it with Tideland. We saw it with The Fisher King. Really, there are elements of it in every single movie he’s done. So it’s no surprise he’s taking on that theme again.
But I’d argue this script doesn’t need it. Quixote and Sancho appear to be two rich, wacky interesting characters all on their own. Why not just set this in the 1600s and tell one of their adventures? Trying to figure out if Quixote was real, how he was over 400 years old, if this was all a dream, how we were seamlessly drifting from 2000 to 1600 – it was so much work that I didn’t have time to enjoy the story.
I think Gilliam likes it this way – that you’re not sure which way is up – but I’m of the belief that before you start tripping up your audience, you have to set up a status quo. We need the constants before we can get to the variables. I can honestly say I never knew what the fuck was going on because I didn’t know what was going on with these two. I mean, think about it. Our main character, Toby, believes that our secondary character isn’t who he says he is. And our secondary character, Don Quixote, believes that our main character, Toby, isn’t who he says he is. I’m terrible at math, but doesn’t this mean that neither of them exists??
I’m not going to go off and tell Terry Gilliam how to write or direct. The man is a genius. I want to make that clear. But I think this speaks to the notion that if you go too far off the reservation, your story can fall apart, no matter who you are. I mean, if it’s happening to Gilliam, it will definitely happen to you.
And I bring this point up because I recently read an amateur script where I was having a discussion with the writer about this very issue. He’d basically created these characters that were three times removed from themselves. The sci-fi script had a body being invaded by a body being invaded by a body. Conceptually, that might certainly be interesting to explore. But in reality, it was really confusing to read.
I want to talk about this more in a coming article, specifically in regards to the movie Cloud Atlas, but for better or worse, we live in a cinematic universe where you don’t want to overcomplicate things. Movies aren’t books (8 hours to finish) or video games (20 hours to finish) where you have time to lead audiences in and out of a number of concepts, philosophies, characters and storylines. They’re only 2 hours long. Which is why you hear so often: “Cut out all the fat.” Movies just can’t hold too many concepts. You have to keep it simple, stupid, with small exceptions here and there. I just think this script didn’t need to be as complicated as it ended up being.
With all that said, I watch every Terry Gilliam movie (Twelve Monkeys made me a fan for life) and I’ll watch this one. I just hope he makes things a little easier to follow in the new draft.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: A dirty little Hollywood secret is that a lot of actors determine their roles exclusively by director, in many cases never even looking at the script (Depp does this a lot. Matt Damon signs on almost exclusively because of directors these days. I just heard Bill Murray talking about this). For that reason, you want to write a script that’s going to attract a great director first, since they’re the ones who are going to attract the star, which is how the movie’s going to get made. While it didn’t work for me in today’s instance, generally speaking, playing with reality in your story is director catnip. Distorted reality allows directors to do all these cool exciting visual things that directors like to do. From all of Gilliam’s movies to The Matrix to Inception to Vanilla Sky to The Truman Show. You want to attract a director, these kinds of screenplays are a good place to start.
Genre: Art-heist thriller/comedy
Premise: Art dealer Charles Mortdecai searches for a stolen painting rumored to contain a secret code that gains access to a Swiss bank account worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
About: Mortdecai will be directed by long time writer, sometimes director, David Koepp. This seems to be Koepp’s step into the directing big leagues, as he’ll be directing Gwyneth Paltrow, Ewan McGregor, Olivia Munn, and Johnny Depp. Mortdecai (based on a 4 book series and primed to be a franchise if it does well), was born out of the new partnership between Lionsgate and Oddlot. Oddlot is a financier/production company run by Gigi Pritzker. Pritzker is one of the richest families in the United States and owns the Hyatt Hotel chain. They’re also producing #1 Black List script, Draft Day. Lionsgate has recently evolved from a schlocky bad horror/sci-fi/supernatural mini-studio to a major player with its acquisition of Summit, which of course has one of the hottest franchises in town, The Hunger Games. Mortdecai is based on a book series by Kyril Bonfiglioli. This specific script is based on the fourth and final book in the series, which Bonfiglioli actually never finished, due to his death in 1985. It was completed by another author.
Writer: Eric Aronson (revisions by Peter Baynham and David Koepp – based on the books by Kyril Bonfigloli)
Details: 120 pages – June 20, 2013 draft
Mortdecai was adapted by a writer named Eric Aronson. Somehow, this very talented writer has only one produced credit, an abomination of cinema called “On the Line,” written in 2001, starring N*SYNC members Lance Bass and Joey Fatone. The sometimes semi-professional baseball player likes to take his breaks, waiting a full 12 years for his newest effort. Talk about patience.
To describe Aronson’s script is tough. It’s kind of like 1 part Sherlock Holmes, 2 parts Pink Panther, 3 parts Coen Brothers. The writing on display is very good, yet it isn’t afraid to moronify itself to Dumb & Dumber levels if necessary. For example, there are roughly 718,000 references to the main character’s mustache.
Basically our title character, Mortdecai, is an art thief. Or he used to be one. Or he still is one. It all depends on who you talk to. The former aristocrat with the most beautiful wife in the world isn’t doing so well these days, though. He owes Mother Britain 8 million dollars in back taxes, which means he’s only a few days away from losing his house, his car, and most likely that beautiful wife.
Lucky for Mortdecai, an opportunity arises. It seems that while being restored, a painting has been stolen. But not just any painting – “The Duchess of Wellington,” one of the most famous paintings in the world, due in part to the rumor that it may not even exist. The story goes, it was ordered destroyed by a king who didn’t like the painting, but was ripped off before the destruction could occur.
It went through many hands over the years and eventually ended up with the Nazis, and rumor has it that the Nazis coded a Swiss bank account number into the painting, which could be worth millions. The police tell Mortdecai that if he can find and bring back that painting, they’ll get rid of his tax problem.
Mortdecai accepts, employing his steady other half, bodyguard and womanizer, Jock. Along the way he finds out that others have caught wind of the painting’s re-emergence and want it as well. One of those people is nasty world criminal Emil Strago, who will presumably use the money from the painting’s secret code to support terrorism. The stakes have been raised.
Complicating his pursuit is his own wife, with whom Mortdecai is having problems. Not just because they’re broke and she doesn’t like his new mustache. But she doesn’t seem to respect him anymore. You get the sense that if he doesn’t pull this off, she’s probably going to leave him. And since she’s the biggest treasure of all, it’s very much in Mortdecai’s interest to find that damn painting before it’s too late!
I can’t stress enough how well Mortdecai is written. The kind of writing that I normally tell screenwriters to avoid turns into music when Aronson types, a possible result of his working with Joey Fatone and Lance Bass. The thing is, overly-descriptive writing tends to detract… UNLESS you’re great at it. And that seems to be the case with Aronson (and all the other writers involved). Here, for example, is an early description of Mortdecai’s mustache…
“A word about Mortdecai’s moustache — it’s a groomed affair and much care has gone into its cultivation, but there’s something a bit off about it. Simply put, everyone can agree he’d be much better off without it. Despite this, great admiration has been bestowed upon it by its owner.”
Could he have said simply, “Mortdecai’s moustache is a little off”? Of course. But there’s something about the extra attention to detail that gives us a better feel for the character. Here’s another description, this one about Mortdecai’s wife:
“The pricey authenticity of her blondeness is unimpeachable, and pleasant weather systems move in when she favors you with her wide and lovely smile.”
I mean, is that description totally necessary? No. But it’s so damn good and fun that I go with it.
In addition to the impressive description, this screenplay very wisely puts a new spin on the genre. In almost all of these art heist thrillers, there’s a painting in a museum or a rich person’s home that the main character must figure out how to steal from. Here, however, we (and the main character) don’t even know where the painting is. It’s already been stolen. In fact, we don’t even know WHAT the painting is. It isn’t revealed until later that it’s the famed “Duchess of Wellington.”
That’s another thing I liked about Mortdecai. It kept you guessing. And I believe these art thrillers are predicated on keeping you guessing. You must constantly surprise the audience. Remember, a thriller is supposed to do just that. THRILL. That doesn’t always mean thrill with a car chase or a shootout. It could mean using a reversal, a surprise, or a shocking reveal. When we find out, for example, that the painting was in Nazi hands and has a secret code embedded in it, we’re more than satisfied. This the kind of fun we came for.
Finally worth noting is that Mortdecai uses a time tested tool that rarely malfunctions. That is, of course, George Lucas’s favorite device, the MacGuffin! This is when you place one very important thing out there in your story THAT EVERYBODY WANTS. And then everybody goes after it. The reason the MacGuffin works so well is because it immediately makes every character ACTIVE. This means the script will always be packed with energy and purpose. Mortdecai’s after the painting. His wife is. Emil Strago is. The British police are after it. The Russians are after it. It’s kind of hard to fuck this up because no matter who you jump to, they’re always in an immediate active state. They’re always pursuing a goal. The MacGuffin isn’t for every story, but in the right story (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean), it can turn your script into a beast.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Seeing as the quadrology of books this script was based on was completed in the 70s and this weekend’s “Winter’s Tale” was based on a book published in the 80s, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea to scour Amazon and GoodReads for highly rated, long-since-forgotten books that don’t have options on them for potential adaptation material. Having an adapted screenplay carries with it a little more cache than an original script, since it’s already been proven in another medium. The problem is all the current stuff is snatched up. But tons of stuff in the 90s, 80s and 70s has been forgotten. Lots of opportunity there.
What I learned 2: The second of today’s “what I learned’s” has nothing to do with Mortdecai, actually, but a TV show!
So last night, Miss SS and I were watching The Bachelor and out of nowhere, a monster of a screenplay lesson popped up and helped Miss SS understand something she’d previously had a hard time grasping. I’ve been trying to tell her forever now how important it is to KNOW YOUR CHARACTERS before you write a script. Write down their bios, get into their past, know what’s led them to this point in their lives. She saw this approach as a creative handicap, though. She likes to discover her characters through dialogue, as they go through her story. Know too much, she said, and it stifles the creativity.
For those of you who don’t watch The Bachelor, it’s a reality show based on the very realistic notion of one man dating 25 women, eliminating them one at a time until there is one left. He then proposes to the final girl, only to break up with her a few months after the show has ended.
In this season, there’s this girl named Clare. Clare is 32, prickly, a little bitchy, jealous, passive-aggressively catty towards the other women, and always looks like she’s seconds away from having an emotional breakdown. Around this season’s bachelor, Juan-Pablo, she’s overly-flirty, eager-to-please, comes on too strong, and carries with her just a wisp of desperation. For all of these reasons, she’s not a household favorite.
Well tonight, Clare unloaded a bomb during one of her interviews. She is one of six sisters, and the only one who hasn’t yet married. “Ohhhh!,” Miss SS said. “No wonder she’s so desperate and catty. At 32 years old, the pressure to find a man must be intense.” That’s when the teachable moment occurred to me. “That,” I said, “is exactly the same thing you’re doing when you dig into your characters’ pasts before you write a script. If you know background stuff – like your unmarried character having 5 sisters, all of whom are married – you’ll be able to write that character way more specifically than had you known nothing.” Clare is the embodiment of a well-written character (despite the fact that she’s “real”). Every single aspect of her is informed by this delicate and pressure-filled reality of being “the last of the sisters.” That seemed to hit Miss SS. “Ooh,” she said. “You should put that on the blog.” And so I have!
Genre: Thriller/Horror
Premise: After suffering a devastating miscarriage, a young woman and her fiancé travel to Italy where she meets his family for the first time, but her grief turns to shock when the local doctor declares that she’s still pregnant.
About: This scored 10 votes on the latest Black List. Writer Christina Hodson still doesn’t have a produced credit, but the former development executive turned screenwriter is churning out lots of product in the hopes of getting there. She wrote previous Black List script, “Shut In” (a creepy script about a woman who must take care of her catatonic son), is adapting the thriller, “Unfogettable,” (about a man whose new wife is being harassed by his ex-wife) and also adapted the novel “Good People,” with James Franco starring (about a couple in debt due to expensive fertility treatments, who stumble across a solution when they find money in a deceased tenant’s apartment). Hodson making the Black List has been pointed out by some to be a rarity, after it was revealed that only 20% of the Black Lists selections are from female writers. While many declare this cause for alarm, when this very topic was brought up during Ladies Week on Scriptshadow, a commenter pointed out that if you go by the number of females who comment on Scriptshadow (few), any disparity in the male-female screenwriting community shouldn’t be surprising at all. If there aren’t that many female writers participating in the screenwriting community, why would it be surprising that they make up a small percentage of said community? This is a debate that will continue on until someone figures out the actual percentage of female writers pursuing screenwriting. Only then will we know if 20% on the Black List is a disproportionately low number.
Writer: Christina Hodson
Details: 96 pages
Winter’s Tale tagline: It’s 1846! No, it’s 2014! My horse can fly! Love is forever!
There is a new phenomenon sweeping the entertainment industry that’s making Gangnam Style look like Flappy Bird. It’s called Winter’s Tale! The runaway sweeping fairytale-slash-romance-slash-time-travel-slash-immortality flick from Akiva Goldsman killed it at the box office, finishing number 5 for the weekend. So many people have gone to see Winter’s Tale, they now have a name for those who have seen it five times or more (Winter’s Tailies). I’ve only seen the movie twice myself but I can confirm it’s every bit as heart-wrenching and mind-bending and utterly-baffling-that-someone-decided-to-make-it-ing, as has been rumored. The character-naming alone is downright historic. I mean, who hasn’t dreamed of naming their characters stuff like “Pearly Soames”? Or “Dingy Worthington”? Or “Cecil Mature”?
Oh! And guess who makes a cameo in the film! (Close your eyes if you’re going out to watch the movie this week and don’t want to know). None other than Jaden Smith’s dad! No word on who he plays, but estimates are on the flying unicorn that’s become so popular in the trailer. Whatever the case, you have to wonder what kind of dirt Akiva Goldsman had on Mr. Smith, Colin Farrell, and Russell Crowe to force them to be in this movie. Clearly something unsavory is going on here.
And if we’re being honest about unsavoriness, I have to admit I haven’t actually seen the film. Sadly, I am not three viewings away from being a Winter’s Tailie. So that was a lie. But a good lie. Because, I mean, come on. There’s no way this movie can be good. In fact, I’m convinced it was made by accident. Some editor in the Warner Brothers’ editing room has been randomly splicing together outtakes from the last 20 years’ worth of Warner Brother’s films and during the recent regime change, someone assumed that the finished product was a film they were releasing. That’s the only excuse for this film being released, right?
So how does all this factor into today’s script review? Well, Seed looks to be inspired by the classic Roman Polanski film, Rosemary’s Baby. Which was, of course, about a woman who has the devil growing inside of her. And since hell would freeze over before anyone were to go see Winter’s Tale, I figured they were a perfect fit to blog about.
Seed introduces us to a chick named Leila. Leila is 29, and one of those lucky gals who was able to snag a hot Italian guy. And she didn’t even have to use Tindr to do it. Tomaso, 33, is a hunk and a half, prime-rib Valentine’s Day meat, you might say, and head over heels in love with Leila. What he’s not in love with, though, is his past. Tomaso had such a bad experience back in his home-country, Italy, that he’s never gone back.
Unfortunately, Tomaso’s father is dying and the family thinks he should come say his goodbyes. Not only does Tomaso hate his dad, but he and Leila are having their own problems. He inadvertently impreg-sauced Leila, who’s since found out that the baby has died inside of her. Because surgery to remove the stillborn fetus is too expensive, all she can do is wait for it to pass through her body naturally.
The thing is, because the two have zilch in their bank account, they can’t even afford rent, so they figure they can kill 2 birds (and one father) with one stone, by going to Italy, saying goodbye, then mooching a room and meals for a couple of months while they look for some more permanent options.
When they get there, though, Leila is shocked to learn that Tomaso’s family is extremely rich. They live in a picturesque, sprawling vista at the top of a hill, and are quite famous in the area.
Tomaso’s father was a well-known “new-age” author in Italy, and preached about spirituality and one-ness and all that other new age gobbledy-gook that women love. But at his deathbed, we get a hint of why Tomaso hates his old man so much. With his last breath, the dad reaches up and rape-kisses Leila! It’s unsettling, and Leila is so not cool with it. Strangely enough though, a day later, the doctor says that that supposedly dead fetus in her isn’t dead at all. It’s growing! Yaaay!!! Or… not yay?
What happens next is pure Creepy Factor 9000, as Tomaso’s older sister Myrra starts teaching Leila the ways of her father, and Leila starts buying into it. She doesn’t think to question the people who live off the family’s land, who sleep in nearby housing, and who are starting to look an awful lot like a cult. Tomaso sees where this is going and does his best to convince Leila to leave with him. But Leila decides she’s staying, that she’s having her baby here. Regardless of what that baby is!
I really like Christina Hodson as a writer. I liked her script, Shut In. She knows how to come up with a concept and exploit it. That’s what screenwriting is all about. It’s finding a cool concept that people will want to pay to see. Then it’s figuring out all the scenes and characters and situations you can milk from that idea, so the audience (or reader) feels like they got their money’s worth.
The worst thing that can happen is when you promise an audience something, then give them something else (or barely give them anything at all). I recently re-watched the 1999 film The Haunting (with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson) wanting to see a film that really exploited the haunted house concept. Instead I got a bunch of over-the-top effects and a rambling storyline. When that happens, you feel gypped.
In this case, Hodson’s trying to write the next Rosemary’s Baby, and she just might have pulled it off. By taking the story out of the U.S. and into Italy, then involving a cult, you have enough external dressing to distract you from the fact that this is basically a remake. It’s a smart move. We’re all basically re-hashing plotlines from the movies we love. The problem is, if our creations are too similar to the movies they’re inspired by, they feel like inferior copies. So you have to change the key ingredients involved so they feel fresh.
Rosemary’s Baby happened in the most populated city in the world. So where does “Seed” take place? The countryside! It seems like a small change but because it changes every aspect of the visual surroundings, it’s actually quite dramatic.
If I have any issue with Seed is that it’s unapologetically formulaic. I mean, there are strong and unique choices made here, as I mentioned. But the way the story evolves and the way it sits squarely within its pigeon-holed genre, it feels a teensy bit generic. The thing that I’m realizing these days with the ever-evolving VOD market, is that these genre movies are being measured on whether they’re big enough to have a theatrical release or if they’re going straight to VOD. If they’re going to have a theatrical release, there needs to be something special in them (an amazing role for an actor, a unique twist that’s never been seen before, or a unique voice that an esteemed director is going to want to do something with).
I can honestly trace the moment studios got scared of giving films like this wide releases back to the film, The Rite. The movie simply didn’t have the muscle to be released on 3000 screens, and opened weakly as a result. Since then, something’s changed. Studios are more cautious when deciding which path to take these movies on.
Look at Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, two of the biggest comedy writers in the business. Well, their recent film, Hell Baby, went straight to VOD. Talk about a tough reality. However, then there’s The Conjuring, which probably went through this vetting process as well. In the end, The Conjuring was based on a real story, which makes the horror genre a lot easier sell to audiences. That was its X-factor.
Ironically, I believe Hodson’s other script, Shut In, does have this quality. It’s unique and different and I could see some weirdo hot-shot up-and-coming director wanting to do something fun with that.
None of this is a bad thing, of course. I still think this script rocks. But I’m learning that, with the market getting more and more competitive, particularly with horror films, you need to bring something big or different to the table to get that coveted theatrical release.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Every writer needs an opposite-sex bullshit detector. If you’re a guy, give your script to a girl after you’re finished and have them “bullshit proof” all the female characters. Ditto if you’re a woman. Have a guy read your script with the focus on, “Would a guy ever act like this or do these things?” If you don’t, those characters are bound to come off a little false.
Get Your Script Reviewed On Scriptshadow!: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send in a PDF of your script, along with the title, genre, logline, and finally, something interesting about yourself and/or your script that you’d like us to post along with the script if reviewed. Use my submission address please: Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Remember that your script will be posted. If you’re nervous about the effects of a bad review, feel free to use an alias name and/or title. It’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so your submission stays near the top.
Genre: Dark Comedy
Premise (from writer): A colorful but washed-up bad boy recounts his epic rise and fall in Hollywood on an online video blog.
Why You Should Read (from writer): Imagine walking into Dylan’s Candy Bar in NYC and receiving a grab-bag of delicious wonderment– a daze of brilliantly colored candies in odd shapes, colors, and textures. In fact, when you first open the bag a pop of glitter explodes in your face. You suddenly get slapped on the back by Christopher Walken, then an adjacent clown blows a bull-horn in your left ear. You’re not quite sure what just happened, you don’t 100% understand… but you think you like it. That’s how reading this script feels.
Writer: Mayhem Jones
Details: 86 pages
Today’s script seems apropos in the wake of Shia LaBeouf’s very public celebrity meltdown. He’s sorry. For what, he’s not saying. What’s eerie is that today’s protagonist, in a script written many months ago (I’m assuming), has a shockingly similar meltdown. Granted, there’s a little Charlie Sheen thrown in for good measure, but it’s weird. Then again, “Dexter Strange” is written with the kind of raw energy that one might assume could be birthed in a Red Bull infused 24 hour writing marathon. So maybe, just maybe, it was conceived in the wake of Shia’s “I Am Sorry” campaign. However, whereas Shia seems to speak by not speaking, Dexter Strange seems to speak by… speaking a lot. A really lot. There’s a lot a lot of speaking in this script. To give you a little preview, here’s a line from Dexter…
“If we work made-up jobs to earn made-up money, then the fact I’m an actor means my made-up job is a made-up job where I make-up being other made-up people in a made-up job I make-up to make made-up money.”
If you’re not prepared to read a lot of sentences like that, then Dexter Strange slash Shia LaBeouf slash Charlie Sheen probably isn’t for you. Was it for me? Let’s find out!
44 year old Dexter Strange is a former movie star. He’s still sexy. He’s still good-looking. But things aren’t going well for him lately. At the moment, he’s sitting in front of his computer, live video streaming his breakdown, which includes lots of drugs, lots of booze, and a couple of hookers shimmying about in the background.
The nice (or un-nice) thing about Dexter is he’s very forthcoming about his meltdown. Like he wants you to know all of it. He will talk and talk and talk and talk until there’s nothing left to say, then he’ll talk some more. Most of his talking has to do with his philosophies on life (there’s a lot of stuff like the “made-up jobs” observation above). Interspersed between these talkings, we get flashbacks of Dexter’s rise to fame.
If you can call it that. Dexter’s rise is surprisingly general. We only get these snippets of it here and there, like when he meets his agent, when he dumps his girlfriend, and when he fake-marries a trashy Lindsey Lohan clone. It’s what’s so strange about this script. For all the exceedingly specific dialogue and voice over, we’re not seeing nearly enough of Dexter’s life.
In the end (big spoiler alert), Dexter doesn’t make it. He kills himself. And I guess that means this lands somewhere between a cautionary tale, a tragedy, and a satire. Does it succeed at any of these? Honestly, I’m not sure. But what I am sure of is that it’s a hell of a ride while we’re trying to figure that out.
The first thing that comes to mind when you read “Dexter Strange” is not the story, or even the character. It’s the writing itself. It’s very fast, energetic, confident, delirious, crazed, as well as a number of other adjectives I can’t think of at the moment.
For the most part, I liked that. Because I’m used to reading a lot of boring writing when I pick up a script. Whether you like this story or not, the writing stays with you. And when the writing stays with the reader, that means the writer has a shot in this business. (#VOICEISIMPORTANT)
The problem with this type of writing, though, is that it’s very “look at me.” It’s more about the writing than the story, and while that works for awhile, it almost always becomes tiring. And in cases like this, where the writing is SO big and SO “in your face,” it can become irritating. I mean here’s one of Dexter’s many monologues, this one on page 13: “What is your thing? Ordaining pastors? Protected sex? Hey. Why don’t you blow my fuckin’ mind for once? You’re– we’re on Rumspriga now, OK! You can wander a little from the farm. Step astride the buggy. Halt churning that goddamn butter. Or do you miss–(flaps arms) BA-CAW! Runnin’ around with the chickens? BA-CAW! Marty. Remember Marty? No-name nothin’ feed corn farmer? Seriously. Inferior corn. Can’t even grow shit fit for human consumption– and he’d kill to be in your loafers right now. But who’s my best friend? Who drove me to Los Angeles, not even a blink, for an agent meeting? Do me a solid by doing me proud. Pretend Marty’s watching us right now– you’re on a screen! Hey, Marty! We’re on TV. Let’s do it. The rabbit hole beckons. Just a taste. A lick. A toe-dip. Here, a puff—“
It’s hard for a reader to take that kind of crazy for 90 minutes.
Assuming that works for the reader though, you’re still fighting an uphill battle with this structure. The script is essentially a ranting character intermixed with flashbacks of his rise to fame. There’s no real story here. We’re not pushing towards anything. We’re recalling everything. What I mean by that is, there’s nothing more to gain. There’s no goal. There’s nothing our character wants. Everything that’s relevant has already happened. And that means the story is only going backwards. A “backwards” story is hard to tell, because most audiences want to go forward. Ripley doesn’t recall the tough life that she had growing up. She goes to that planet to destroy the aliens. In “Dexter Strange,” we’re just remembering a very sad man’s life where very sad things happened.
Now if you want to play this as a tragedy, that’s a different deal. But the thing with tragedies is we still need that building-up period. We need the happy stuff. The good times. A world that our character can fall from grace from. In Goodfellas, Henry Hill achieves a hell of a lot and lives a wonderful life before he starts to fall. As does our friend Tony Montana in Scarface. In “Dexter Srange,” there’s never really any good times. Dexter is screwed pretty much from the beginning (he’s forced to give a producer a hand job on his very first meeting for a role).
When you throw in a main character who’s hard to like (this guy’s an asshole to pretty much everyone), well, you’ve made things really hard for yourself.
You guys know me by now. I don’t respond to stuff that’s all negative, all sad. And to drive that point home, I stopped reading this a couple of times to go read THIS post. That tells you how much this was getting me down.
But I don’t think Mayhem should be discouraged here. She’s created a character that an actor would love to play. And she clearly has a ton of talent. I often gauge a writer’s ability with the question, “Could the average writer do this?” There is nobody else in the world who could’ve written this script but this writer. So that’s saying something. Now if she could just harness her powers and bring that talent to something a little more accessible, I’d be in.
Script Link: The Tragic Life Of Dexter Strange
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Style over substance only works for about 15-20 pages before the reader starts to check out. Doesn’t matter how good of a wordsmith you are, how good you are with prose. 15 pages with all glitz and no story? Readers start skimming.
