Hope everyone had a Happy Fourth. I’ll be taking the day off today as my cohort Tarson Meads makes his return reviewing a Vampire script. Tomorrow I’ll be reviewing that mysterious high-profile project (which I will warn you in advance – there will be no script link for). If you’re just dying to know what it is, I just started the Scriptshadow Fadebook Fan Page. There are some hints on there :) So stop fooling around and join up! Here’s Tarson…

Genre: Action/Horror
Premise: Two US mercenaries become involved in a brazen plot to kidnap a beautiful and seductive socialite. However, they soon realize the girl they’ve snatched is an ancient Vampire queen, and her legion is out to get her back.
About: A vampire spec penned by upcoming writer/director Michael Stokes. His indie film “The Beacon” won first prize in a series of horror festivals and comps. Nightfall is currently in development with legendary horror producer Frank Mancuso Jr.
Writer: Michael Stokes

Nightfall has been on my Top 10 for a while now, but I never had the chance to review it, so here you go.

They say don’t ever write a Vampire spec, right? Thankfully, Stokes ignored that advice and wrote one of the most enjoyable Vampire scripts I’ve read in years. I had a lot of fun with Nightfall, there’s a ton of stuff to compliment here, but the real highlight was Stokes’ writing style. I loved it. It’s the kind of style I try to emulate. Snappy dialogue, vivid action, words that pack a punch. The way a great action spec should be.

Stokes doesn’t waste any time at getting to the meat of the concept either. The story begins with the intro of our two protags – Rainford and Denton, two bad- ass, mercs for hire. Rainford is actually on a job to kill Denton when we first meet them inside an Albanian tavern. Rainford’s job has been set up by a couple of local mobsters. The pay is good, but at the last minute, Rainford decides against killing Denton, and all hell breaks loose. This opening grabbed me from page one with strong visuals, and some really cool action sequences.

After the opening bang, the two men decide to work together and soon become involved in a shady scheme to kidnap an exotic socialite from a packed nightclub. They don’t know much about the target – except her name is Aurora, she’s drop dead gorgeous, and their employer is a very rich man by the name of Peter Foxe. Unfortunately his hot-headed and inexperienced son is leading the gig. Apart from our two heroes, there’s a crew of freelance mercs tagging along, who seem to know a lot more about the job than they’re letting on. Things are not adding up. Sparks soon begin to fly. There also seems to be an awful lot of heavy handed hardware and tech in place, just for one woman. Hmmm. You see where this is headed, don’t you.

Another highlight for Nightfall was Stokes’ clever usage of Vampire mythology, as well as his own unique touches that he skilfully adds, here and there. The action is top-notch, and when the shit hits the fan, its balls-to-the-wall mayhem. It’s just a great combination of action and horror, with lots of twists and turns. Overall this was just a really fun read, highly recommended for any scribes who are into this kind of thing.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I Learned: Don’t be so concerned with market trends. Sure, you need a solid understanding of what’s selling and what’s not, but chasing the market isn’t the best course to a success. Writing what you feel passionate about is. But make sure you know what the hell you’re doing. There’s no formula when it comes to what sells. Genre wise, anything can sell, but it has to be unique and commercially viable at the same time. With so many Vampire and Zombie scripts clogging up the spec market, most people in Hollywood yawn at the sight of them, knowing all too well, the majority of them, suck (heh.) But despite this, audiences still crave these types of movies, and despite what you hear, they are still popular with some studios and production companies. They just need to be good. Really fucking good.

Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller
Premise: An ex-professor seeks the truth about a secret organization known as the “Karma Coalition.”
About: A high-profile pick-up from Warner Bros. in late 2008 to the tune of 1.5 million. Christensen is the lead singer for a band called Stellarstarr. Christensen also co-wrote “Sidney Hall” which has been set up with producers Ridley and Tony Scott.
Writer: Shawn Christensen

Now I’ve caught a lot of flak for liking this script so much. People barrage me with arguments like “It’s got plot holes you could drive a semi through!” They say it’s cheesy, clunky, and all over the place. You know what I say? You’re wrong. You’re 93% stinking wrong! This script was a hell of a ride. Not to mention I’m a sucker for a good “ordinary man in extrodinatry circumstances” tale – and Karma Coaliton takes care of my fix.

Beware. Major spoilers follow. Part of the reason I liked this script so much was that I didn’t have any clue what it was about going in. So if you plan on reading it, tread carefully.There are spoiler landmines everywhere.

A recent flap of deaths has been occurring all over the world – deaths of very important people: Archdioceses, scientists, celebrities. But why? What’s the connection? There’s someone who knows. Someone who’s been betting on these deaths from the beginning. And getting it right every single time. So we’re going to find out who this person is and how they’re making these amazing predictions right? Wrong. The prognosticator is killed on Page 6.

Whoa.

William Craft, a relatively young college professor who just lost his job for sleeping with one of his students (wait a minute, don’t all college professors sleep with their students? I thought that was one of the perks.) is just trying to make it to the next day. He’s a widow. His soul mate/wife/love of his life died in a car accident six years ago. Without her, he’s been stumbling through life, looking for a purpose.

William’s life is turned upside-down when the police blow into his place and arrest him. Remember the prognosticator? Turns out William used to be friends with him. He’s thrown into an interrogation room and told that he’s under suspicion for the murder of this man. Before they deal with that, however, the cop slides a mysterious box across the table and asks William to open it. The box belonged to the prognosticator and was left to William.

William carefully pries the box open. Inside are five things. One, a note that tells him the cop opposite him is one of the dirtiest cops in the city. Two, a gun. Three, smoke bombs. Four, a DVD. And five, a note. A note that simply says: “She’s still alive.”

Have I got your attention yet? Welcome to Karma Coalition. I don’t know about you, but I’m hooked.

I’m not going to tell you how William gets out of the room because it’s pretty obvious. He’s got smoke bombs! After escaping, he takes his newfound possessions to a friends’ and pops the DVD in. The DVD is of the prognosticator, who informs him that in 2013, a huge catastrophic event takes place that wipes out 90% of the earth’s population. Because of this, a secret organization called the Karma Coalition is faking the deaths of very important people all over the world, in order to get them onto a secret island called “Parista,” where they will be safe and the human race will continue.

Guess whose wife is on that iiiiiiiii-sland?

Naturally, William will do anything to get to the island. And the good news is, he’s on the Parista list. But the cops chasing him have other plans. Will William make it to Parista? Will he be reunited with his wife? I’m sorry but you’ll have to read the script to find out. Or the rest of the review.

I loved the heart-pounding unpredictable nature of Karma Coalition but it did have its faults. (Major spoilers) When William finally gets to Parista, we have about 7 minutes to wrap up the storyline between him and his wife. He charges into a restaurant where his wife and her parents are having dinner and it just feels…wrong. Clunky. Weird. This is the love of his life and it’s not the way to reunite them. Part of the predicament of Karma Coalition is that you do have the main character getting to his destination late in the screenplay, forcing you to wrap up a lot of storylines in a very short amount of time. As a result, all of the storylines get short-shrift. None more than him and his wife, which should’ve been an incredibly emotional moment and wasn’t.

But the final sequence of Karma Coalition is ridiculously fun. The cops are tracking down the island of Parista, trying to find William. Yet they’re being led deep into the middle of Wyoming. How can there be an island in the middle of Wyoming? The answer leads us to “the big twist,” which I suspect put Karma Coalition over the hump and secured it that huge sale. Many people point out that the twist doesn’t hold water (ahem, island reference). And if you really think about it, there are definitely some inconsistencies. But I had so much fun getting there and the twist was so unexpected, I didn’t care. It’s one of those things you know they’re going to address in the rewrites anyway, so I just went with it.

Sure Karma Coaltion can be silly at times. And it’s not afraid to toss in a few cliches. But the script is so fast and its imagination so vibrant, I’m going to prematurely vanguish all you Negative Nancies out there and highly recommend it.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Probably the best “ordinary man in an extraordinary circumstance” movie is either “North By Northwest” or “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.” The reason we’ve been so light on this genre lately is because Hollywood demands more realism these days. Your character has to behave in a realistic way. I don’t know about you but if a terrorist pointed a gun at my head, I wouldn’t go for a Bruce Lee sweep of the legs combined with a Trinity wall climb, simultaneously grabbing his gun and forcing him to shoot his own partner. I’d probably scream like a little girl. The problem in these movies is that sooner or later, your character will be forced into choices that require extraordinary actions. How he/she goes about them in a believable way is the key to making the genre work. I’m telling you this after highlighting a scene in KC where our “ordinary” hero escapes an interrogation room with smoke bombs. So obviously these rules are not hard and fast. But I guarantee you this issue will be brought up in any script you submit. So you might as well nip it in the bud now.

Genre: Drama
Premise: Coming-of-age tale about a young man trying to find himself in New York City.
About: Allan Loeb is one of the hottest writers working today. He broke onto the scene with Black List favorite, “Things We Lost In The Fire” (which I’ve been told is a much better script than it is a movie), penned the surprise hit “21,” and most recently finished the job of one of the most sought after assignments in town, “Money Never Sleeps” (aka “Wall Street 2”), and he’s got like six other projects in development. The Only Living Boy In New York is unique in that it’s one of the only drama specs sold in the last 5 years that didn’t have any talent attached (translation: It was really f’ing good).
Writer: Allan Loeb

Like I always say, if you’re gonna steal, steal from the best. “Living Boy” is basically “The Graduate” meets “Great Expectations” with a pinch of “The Great Gatsby” thrown in for good measure. The coming-of-age stuffy upper-crust 20-something angsty tale in NY is likely to appall as much as it appeals since older folk tend to roll their eyes at insignificant “problems” us young men endure (“Oh, I missed work because I partied too late. What ever am I going to do?”). This attitude reached an all-time fever pitch during the successful run of “Garden State,” a movie “Living Boy” will no doubt be compared to. But while “Boy” definitely has its share of angst, its characters lift it up and beyond Zach Braff’s New Jersey opus. Things feel a bit more meaningful here. And I can attribute that mainly to Loeb’s excellent writing.

20-something Thomas lives in New York City. He’s best friends with a super-hot (in a hip alternative way) college chick named Mimi. In an ecstacy-inspired night of regret and stupidity, Mimi makes the mistake of granting Thomas an all-night sex-a-thon. As a result, he’s fallen hopelessly in love with her. Of course Mimi considers the night a monumental college-level mistake (boy did I have my share of those) and doesn’t see why Thomas can’t just get over it. Thomas spends a good portion of “Living Boy” wondering why a sweet decent-looking guy like himself can’t land a hot girl like Mimi.

That’s the least of his worries though. While wandering aimlessly through New York one day, he accidentally spots his asshole of a father kissing a woman that is definitely NOT his mother. The 30-something icy business woman, Johanna, is easily the most beautiful thing he’s ever seen. Thomas is furious. His mother is already on the verge of a mental breakdown and finding out that her husband is cheating on her would surely push her over the edge.

Rounding out the cast of characters is the mysterious W.F. Gerald (it even sounds like someone from The Great Gatsby), a 50-something “unmade bed of a man,” as Loeb puts it. The wise W.F. is always there to dole out his sage advice when Thomas needs it. And Thomas needs it in spades.

He begins following his father’s mistress and when he finally works up the courage to confront her, he demands that she stop seeing him. The woman, who seems not to know of these things called “feelings,” makes it very clear that both she and her father can make their own decisions and that Thomas has no say in the matter. She follows this by accusing Thomas of falsely approaching her – insisting that the only reason he followed her was because he wants her himself. Thomas is appalled at the suggestion and storms away.

Later on, at a swanky upper crust party, Thomas runs into Johanna separately from his father, and she proceeds to seduce him (for the sport of it, of course), taking him home and engaging in a wild night of animal sex. Thomas now finds himself in an affair within an affair…sort of… as he starts sleeping with the same woman that is sleeping with his father. That’s comfortable. Of course Mimi, playing off of Thomas’ new popularity with the ladies, suddenly changes her mind and decides that she wants a relationship with Thomas. But Thomas has long since fallen in love with Johanna, and now cares only that she dump his father so the two can be together alone…and not…with his father (your average 20-something dilemma).

The way Thomas weaves in and out of these storylines is humbling to say the least. Loeb is an incredibly gifted writer. One of the true marks of great writers is how they describe their characters, and Loeb doesn’t disappoint.
[scrippet]
…Mimi Pastori

wears a double dyed pink wife-beater that stops just short of her bumper sticker… the Chinese symbol of balance. She owns a temple of a body built of feminine mesa-morph and displays small diamond stud in her nose.

All of Mimi’s attempts to hide her beauty fail miserably.
[/scrippet]
Or the way they write dialogue…
[scrippet]
THOMAS
I think… I… August eighth. I think August eighth was real.

MIMI
It was amazing, Thomas, but it was just one night. We were both on ecstasy, I thought I was a pirate and I was vulnerable because Nick left… and it was just one night.

THOMAS
Well, I’m crazy about you.

MIMI
And I’m crazy about you. But–

THOMAS
Don’t say “as a friend.”

He pulled the words right out of her mouth…

MIMI
Why not, Thomas? Why is that so bad?

THOMAS
Because pretty girls like to recruit their rejections and call them friends.
[/scrippet]
Or just how they can describe something in such a way that you know exactly what they mean…
[scrippet]
Howard immediately looks around. This transparent look-through-you gaze that famous and extremely rich people do when they want to talk to someone more important.
[/scrippet]
The Only Living Boy In New York’s biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. We’re looking at a character study here. And because Loeb is so focused on these great characters, the story itself is minimal to non-existent. Which is fine. That’s par for the course in this genre. But “Living Boy” stops just short of feeling like something important. It doesn’t make you reevaluate your life the way a viewing of “The Graduate” does. It’s limited to the inter-connectivity of these handful of characters. But it’s a great handful. I wouldn’t mind scooping up a few of them and tossing them in my own screenplays. If you’re a fan of “coming-of-age” films, this is a must read. If not, I would still encourage you to check this out. But I can’t promise it’s going to knock your socks off.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Take your time and describe your main characters people! Look at the way Loeb describes Mimi above. It takes time to come up with that. But it pays off. I know a lot of writers who would’ve gone with, “Mimi, 22, is artsy and hot.” I’m not saying I haven’t seen professional writers do this. I have. But you get so little time in a screenplay to convey the true essence of a character, and if you nail it the description, it makes things so much easier on you and the reader later on.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A crew of crab fisherman rescue a drifting castaway with a mysterious cargo.
About: Hot spec which sold not too long ago. Chris Gorak (“Right at Your Door”) will direct for Palmer West.
Writer: Josh Baizer and Marshall Johnson

Well I’m sure you already know this but Crab-Fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Crabs tend to hang out in the farthest, most desolate, most dangerous places in the sea, forcing these tiny little boats to battle Perfect Storm like weather smack dab in the middle of nowhere. Half-ton cages are swinging around perilously close to your head. If one were to fall or swing at an inopportune moment, you could be knocked into blue country, or worse, splattered against a wall. It’s rainy, it’s slippery, it’s chaotic. It’s where accidents go to vacation. Needless to say, this is a perfect setting for a movie, and why “Dead Loss” feels like a no-brainer.

Dead Loss follows its earnest captain, Ben, and his eccentric batshit crazy crew (I say that only because anyone who goes out on one of these boats has to be crazy). The centerpiece of his crew is Nate, Ben’s estranged brother, who, although they’re similar in age, has quite a bit more mileage. We find out that the alcoholic Nate recently got out of jail, and that he was responsible for a previous accident on Ben’s boat that killed a man. Ben’s not happy that Nate will be joining him, but he’s low on experienced crabbers and beggars can’t be choosers.

The script does a great job setting up the stakes. Ben’s crab business is a shark’s bite away from bankruptcy, and a successful crab run is about the only thing that will save their business. Desperate times call for desperate measures and instead of following the rest of the crab boats into familiar waters, Ben takes his chances on the gold rush, a secret spot way the hell out in Russian waters. It’s a dangerous gamble, as the weather there is ten times worse than anywhere else and since it’s illegal, there’s no calling for help if things go wrong. But like I said, what choice do they have?

The trip is a bust. Not only do these guys have to deal with 20 foot waves every couple of minutes (Quick question: How in the world do you sleep in 20 foot waves??), but they’d have more luck finding crab at a local strip joint. Just when things are looking really bad, one of the crew spots a life raft in the distance. Ben makes an emergency rescue attempt (not easy when a badly timed sideways turn can get you tipped over) and pulls the raft onto the boat. There are two men. One dead. One barely alive.

They drag the men inside and and start deciding what to do. That’s when someone notices a series of black lockboxes in the raft with Japanese inscriptions on the side. They open them. Inside are diamonds and gold. Millions of dollars worth. And just like that, everything changes.

Another check of the men shows that they’re covered in tattoos. These guys aren’t sailors. They’re professional thieves. And one of them is clinging to life. To quote Dennis Hopper in Speed: What do you do? What do you do?

The theme of the movie rears its ugly head. Greed. You start thinking a little funny when a million bucks drops in your lap. You start rationalizing things that are irrational. “Well, they probably would’ve died anyway if we hadn’t picked’em up. So why not finish the job?” The crew begins to take sides. Some believe they should throw the men back onto the raft and take the diamonds. Others believe they should call the coast guard. But the surest way to keep the money is to throw these bozos over the ledge and never speak of them again.

However, decisions have a funny way of working themselves out. And not always in the ways we hope. When the guys go down to check on the Russians…

One of them…. is missing. Uh-fucking-oh.

A very adult game of Hide-and-go-seek begins. But it’s clear that our Russian friend’s interpretation of the game is a little different. As in, you find him, he kills you. In a sort of “reverse Die-Hard,” he starts killing off crew members one by one. They wish that was their only problem. Angryov Killsky sneaks into the engine room and sabotages one of the engines. The crew is thrown. Why the fuck would he sabotage an engine? They find their answer in the lockboxes. A glowing red light. Oh shit. It’s a GPS locator. Whoever these Russians are, they were waiting to be picked up. And since they’ve been in that raft for days, it’s a good bet that whoever’s coming to get them is damn close.

Some of the crew actually recognizes they’re dealing with the Radmoninov The Killer Ruski and vote to call the Coast Guard. Others know the loot is gone if they do and prefer to take their chances.

It’s all very captivating and well-written. I like how Baizer and Johnson play with expectations. Ben, the “do-gooder” captain, is unexpectedly overtaken by greed while Nate, the jailed black sheep, is the one begging everyone to do the right thing. The way their relationship plays out grounds the story in an emotional reality that scripts like this usually don’t have. The ending isn’t exactly what I expected, but was still satisfying.

I could go on about Dead Loss but what else is there to say? It’s a really good script and I recommend it.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: A bit of a nitpick here but I think it’s a valid criticism. The script opens with a scene that basically introduces all of our characters. One of the things I’ve learned is to never *just* create a scene that introduces you to all your characters. Create a story around it. Make it interesting. Otherwise, you may as well just place each character onscreen and have a voiceover telling us who they are. If you’re not going to entertain us, then you’re not telling a story. In this scene, everybody’s on a boat talking to each other. Why can’t someone be looking for something? Maybe they can’t leave without it. Maybe the Captain is MIA and nobody knows where he is? Or maybe the Captain is showing up in 5 minutes and they know if the ship isn’t ready by that time, he’s going to tear them to pieces. Add *something* that elevates your introductions to something more than introductions. You get to introduce your characters and we get to be entertained. It’s a win-win.

Genre: Dark Comedy
Premise: An extremely depressed man finds a beaver puppet in the garbage. When he puts it on, his life takes a dramatic turn for the better. Or does it?
About: This was the number 1 script on the Blacklist in 2008, which means all the biggest readers in town loved it. Steve Carrel became interested shortly thereafter, attaching himself, but has since exited the project. It’s now rumored that Jim Carrey is interested, which would make this the 243rd project he’s attached to. So far, nobody has purchased The Beaver.
Writer: Kyle Killen

Welcome to The Scriptshadow Challenge – Second Installment. Hopefully you all read your Beaver script last week and are ready to comment on it here and at Go Into The Story. Below you’ll find my review and then Scott Myers’. Keeping with tradition, my review is about 1/8 the length of Scott’s. But that’s okay because, as usual, he gives great analysis. So consider this the appetizer and Scott’s the main course. Afterwards, leave your own reviews in the comments section and together we can determine why the script was so well-loved. Enjoy!

…

The Beaver is a pretty solid little script. It’s a thinly veiled (albeit dark) version of “Guy drinks magical potion. Life changes for the better.” What separates it from the rest of these types of films is that it’s not a comedy. Well, it is, but not really. It’s actually a serious look at how depression ruins families and how distraction and denial may work as temporary lifeboats from the disease, but sooner or later, you’re going to have to deal with the real issues.

The story follows our suicidal main character, Walter, whose depression is so bad that his family kicks him out of the house (way to help out Fam!). Walter finds a beaver sock puppet in the trash that, for shits and giggles, he slips on. As soon as he does, it starts talking…in a British accent. The puppet informs Walter that he’s here to save his life. From that point on, he relieves Walter of all talking duties. His goal? To put Walter’s life back together.

He starts with Walter’s toy company, where he begins restructuring the main toy line. He moves to the children, who at first seemed baffled that their dad is talking through a puppet, but eventually warm to it. He even brings the beaver into the bedroom to join him and his wife for a little sexy-time. Needless to say, she’s a little freaked out. Now you may be asking, “Why would a group of men follow orders from a British puppet? Why would a perfectly reasonable woman allow a puppet to be involved in her sex life?” The answer is because the beaver (er, I mean, Walter) is happy for the first time in as long as anyone can remember. And since everything is going so well, nobody wants to rock the boat…in case it falls on the dam. And that’s where the problems start. Once the beaver gets a taste of this power, he wants more of it. A lot more.

I congratulate The Beaver for working on many levels. Unfortunately, I don’t think I understand all of them. It’s unclear to me whether Walter is puppeting the beaver, or if the beaver’s a real live animal/thing with its own brain and body. I mean, of course he’s just puppeting it, but in the end, nobody can take the puppet off of him. It’s physically impossible to remove it. So has the beaver turned real? Was it real all along? Is Kyle Killen, the writer, laughing at me right now? Or is all this just a concoction of Walter’s demented depressed mind? I’m still not sure what the answer is.

Walter finally comes to the realization that a puppet is controlling his life, and decides to put an end to the beaver. Since he can’t pull it off, he cuts it off, along with his hand. With the puppet now dead (at least until the sequel) Walter can finally face the reality of his life and try to overcome his depression the right way.

If I were to note the highlights of the script, it would be two superb scenes, one in the middle and one towards the end, that give a very thoughtful and powerful assessment on how we humans live our lives. The first is the beaver in an interview with Matt Lauer (yes, Matt Lauer) and the other is Walter’s son’s graduation speech which we hear in voice over. It’s heartbreaking stuff about how our life is pretty much set and all we can really do is go along for the ride. Both speeches are so powerful and so dead-on that these moments alone make up for most of the script’s deficiencies.

The last thing I’ll say about the script is that it’s not the best script I read on The Black List, but it’s definitely the most memorable. And I think there’s a lesson here. 9 out of 10 writers would’ve explored this concept as a broad comedy. The fact that we’re essentially watching a drama about a guy who talks through a British beaver puppet distinguishes this script from every other script out there. So that even if you disliked the script, chances are you still remembered it. That’s why it got noticed.

Check this out. It’s worth a read.

Script link: The Beaver

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: As I just stated, doing something different with your screenplay will set you apart from all the other writers pushing predictable crap into Hollywood. It’s a calculated risk though because you probably won’t sell the script through traditional channels. But, if it’s well-executed, like The Beaver, you can make it onto the Black List, which gives your script exposure, which in turn could attract talent and lead to a sale.

Now for Scott’s take:

“The Beaver” is an exceptional script, a dark comedy with a most unusual hook: One of the story’s primary characters is a hand puppet — “The Beaver” — who comes ‘alive’ and basically takes over the plot. It’s extremely well-written with interesting and sharply drawn characters, a nicely structured yet surprising plot, and the writer infuses the script with strong visuals, all of which helps to lift the story off the printed page and into one’s imagination. The script also has three big areas of concern in terms of the story — more on those later.

Here is some background on the screenplay:

Writer: Kyle Killen

News: The script topped The 2008 Black List”, the “most liked” unproduced script as determined by votes of 250 Hwood development execs.

Originally set up in November, 2008 with Steve Carell to star, now Jim Carrey and Jodie Foster are circling the project, Carrey as the lead and Foster to direct.

As far as I know, “The Beaver” is Killen’s first script sale.

MAIN CHARACTERS

Walter: A depressed middle-aged man who suddenly was forced to take over as CEO of a toy company, a job for which he was not suited, nearly driving the company into the ground. Husband and father of two sons.

Meredith: Walter’s stalwart, patient, and forgiving ‘soccer mom’ wife.

Porter: Walter’s cynical high school senior son who feels trapped by his father’s genetic and behavioral shadow (i.e., he will turn out like Walter).

Henry: Walter’s grade school son who leads a nearly invisible life among his peers, except when they’re bullying him.

Norah: Overachieving high school senior, Porter’s love interest.

The Beaver: An animal puppet with a “crisp English accent” who becomes Walter’s personal psychological therapist, lifestyle coach, inseparable companion, and increasingly Walter’s ‘voice.’

PLOT

Per the ten major plot points of Narrative Throughline, the plot breaks down as follows:

Act One

Opening (P. 1-4): Establish Walter, his job, his family, and his state of deep depression, setting up his ensuing suicide attempt.

The Hook (P. 13-15): The Beaver comes to ‘life’ and asserts, “I’m The Beaver, Walter. I’m here to save your goddamned life.”

The Lock (P. 29-33): After Walter introduces The Beaver to his family, there is a big meeting at Walter’s office, setting into motion the ticking clock (toy expo), and finalizing all the various subplots.

Act Two

First Big Test (P. 40-45): Montage showing the deconstruction of Walter’s life — from depressed, non-functioning human to vital, positive figure, but laced with an implicit threat: What’s going to happen with The Beaver?

Transition (P. 63-65): On Walter and Meredith’s 20th anniversary date, Walter breaks down when given a memory box filled with photos from his and his family’s past, ending with The Beaver’s assertion to Meredith, “He can’t go back… He’s not going back to that.”

Second Big Test (P. 74-75): Unable to free himself of The Beaver, Walter’s family leaves him.

All Is Lost (P. 92-93): With Walter retreating into his original depressed state and The Beaver increasingly the dominant personality of the two, Walter cuts off his puppet hand and buries The Beaver in a coffin.

Act Three

On the Defensive (P. 95-96): With his business and family life collapsing around him, and recovering with a prosthetic hand, Walter is sent to a psychiatric hospital.

On the Offensive (P. 96-99): Walter meets with Meredith and Henry, and it turns out Walter is doing better and could be ready to go home soon.

Final Struggle (P. 106-107): Walter and Porter meet at the hospital, and confront core emotional issues.

The Denouement: Walter returns home with his family, happily waving goodbye to Porter as Porter takes off on a road trip with Norah.

And therein lies one of the rubs: While Walter and The Beaver’s relationship creates the spine of the Plotline, for much of the script, it feels like Porter’s story.

So let me do a breakdown of the story’s character archetypes, one with Walter as the story’s Protagonist, another with Porter as the P.

CHARACTER ARCHETYPES

Protagonist: Walter

The story is framed throughout to be about Walter and his relationship with The Beaver. It’s his eventual goal — to be with his family — that leads him into his ultimate conflict with The Beaver. And yet, for much of the script — almost all of the second act — Walter’s character virtually disappears. The Beaver takes over so while Walter is present physically, he is rarely involved emotionally. It’s only when Walter makes the cut — literally — from The Beaver that Walter ends up in a unity state where each day is a work-in-progress, but there’s a clear sense that he is getting better.

Nemesis: The Beaver

If you think of all those Blank From Hell movies in the 80s and 90s, this script could be thought of as The Plush Doll From Hell. Starts out as Walter’s friend, then over time dominates their relationship, revealing itself to be the primary obstacle Walter needs to overcome in order to achieve his goal: Get back with his family.

Attractor: Meredith / Henry / Porter

In order of time spent and emotional depth — as far as Walter’s character is concerned — the Attractor characters are Meredith, then Henry, and finally Porter. But as we’ll see when looking at the story with Porter as the Protag, the script has many scenes and dynamics that suggest it’s at its heart a father-son story (this is underscored by the script’s penultimate scene — the rapprochment between Porter and Walter). And yet, of all the primary characters, Walter spends the least amount of time with Porter. So in actuality, the father-son story is almost exclusively approached via Porter and his POV.

Mentor: Walter’s memories of his family

Throughout most of the script, The Beaver wears a Mentor’s mask, providing advice, encouraging Walter, and eventually taking charge of all Walter’s decision-making. So I suppose you could argue that The Beaver takes on the role of Dark Wisdom. But what ‘saves’ Walter in the end is when he reconnects with his family, spurred by the breakthrough when he sorts through all the photos Meredith has provided for him with his Memory Box.

Trickster: Walter’s depression

Clearly it provides one enormous test after another for Walter, almost causing himself to commit suicide as the story begins. Once The Beaver takes over, he manages to manipulate Walter out of his depressed state — seemingly — but eventually the depression returns. And in a twist befitting a Trickster, it’s that return that causes the final emotional cleavage between Walter and The Beaver, leading to Walter sawing off his puppet hand.

Now let’s look at the character archetypes with Porter as the Protag:

Protagonist: Porter

Of all the characters in the movie, no one deals more in depth and directly with their own emotional issues than Porter. In his relationships with his family, with Nora, and several scenes alone with himself, in a very real way, Porter confronts who Walter is even more than Walter does. Yes, Walter tries to commit suicide, but after The Beaver appears, Walter essentially flips a switch for the duration of Act One and much of Act Two. It’s Porter, who may know Walter’s behavioral quirks even better than Walter himself, who confronts again and again his own personal issues.

Nemesis: Walter

Walter = Curse as far as Porter is concerned. Walter is a deadly combination of repugnant habits and bad DNA, driving Porter to obsess if he will turn out to be like his father. It’s only after Walter has gone through his own catharsis and made the separation from The Beaver, achieving some version of a unity state, where Porter is able to approach his father as a peer and not the enemy.

Attractor: Norah

To me, this is almost the most interesting relationship in the script. Two young people, both of whom labor under long, dark psychological shadows — Porter and the legacy of his father, Norah and the legacy of her brother. Their conflict and discourse is pointed and smart, and there’s a continual flip-flop from one to the other about who is in the ‘power position,’ who is in the right, who knows what they’re talking about that makes this subplot quite interesting.

Mentor: Porter the Writer

Porter is a smart kid and he uses his way with words for his own financial benefit by ghost-writing papers and essays for his classmates. It’s his writer self that precipitates his intersection with Norah. It’s his commitment to ghost-writing her commencement speech that allows the couple to get to know each other. And in what seems like a negative experience, it’s his writing that gets him into trouble (the essay he wrote for Hector), kicked out of school, and rejected Brown University. But in the end, it turns out Porter needed to get knocked off that path (just like Norah requires a break from going straight to Stanford). However the most important moment where Porter’s writer self provides wisdom is when Norah tells him that the commencement address he wrote was not about her, it is actually about Porter. And in reading his own words, Porter comes to a place where he can finally go to meet his father one-on-one.

Trickster: The Beaver

On the one hand, The Beaver turns around Walter’s depression, seemingly a good thing for Porter. But then The Beaver’s continuing presence in the family’s life simply accentuates Porter’s concern about becoming like his father — it makes Walter even weirder.

AREAS OF CONCERN

Now let me say again, I enjoyed this script. I think it will make an interesting movie. But if I was one of the filmmakers involved in this project, I would have some concerns about how it works — or doesn’t work — as a story.

1. Walter’s disappearance: As noted, during much of Act Two, Walter’s character — while present physically — disappears as an active persona for a long stretch of time. In many scenes Walter exists as a prop to transport The Beaver around, provide a platform from which The Beaver can pontificate. And one of the classic concerns in screenwriting is not to create a passive Protagonist — but for much of the movie, that’s precisely what Walter is. Now I think that’s precisely the point the writer is making with Walter’s character, moving from depressed state to what turns out to be a fake state of wellness, back to depression, then resentment toward The Beaver, the separation from The Beaver, and the eventual move into genuine wellness and toward wholeness — he starts off passive, then becomes active. And in theory, I don’t have a problem with that. For example, in the movie Being There, the Protagonist Chance (Peter Sellers) is led about throughout the entire story, the joke being that other people actively interpret Chance’s simplistic gibberish as incredible wisdom. But The Beaver isn’t that kind of story. Besides there is supposedly at the core of this script a subplot that — at least in my view — is not fully realized because of Walter’s ‘disappearance’: The father-son story.

2. At its heart, this is a father-and-son story, but one told almost exclusively through the perspective of the son. In fact, for nearly all of the second act, Walter and Porter rarely interact. The writer goes to extra lengths to address that, intercut scenes, split-screen scenes, visual to visual transitions that put the two characters ‘side-by-side,’ but there are only a handful of actual moments where the two characters intersect. An odd way to approach this subplot, especially since the emotional apex of the script is the final meeting between Walter and Porter, however since the two have rarely interacted, the impact is less than it could be. What we carry into that exchange is the specific perspective of Porter who has obsessed throughout about his father’s shadow and a rather generic sense of what Porter, and indeed his whole family means to Walter. Both of those go right back to the previous point — how Walter disappears in Act Two.

3. Finally, going back to an earlier point, even though the Plotline is defined by the relationship between Walter and The Beaver, I found myself constantly pulled toward the emotional plot of Porter’s story. Again this is exacerbated by Walter’s ‘disappearance’ as a character for much of the script. You could try to draw a parallel between this script and American Beauty — actually I think there are many parallels (e.g., drama-comedy, satire on suburban American living, dysfunctional family, father going through a mid-life crisis) — where Walter, like Lester, create the spine for the Plotline and a major subplot is provided by the romance story between flawed teenagers (i.e., Porter & Norah / Ricky & Jane). But Ricky & Jane in American Beauty is truly a subplot, secondary in the amount of time and emotional heft compared to the various subplots Lester is involved in, whereas the Porter & Norah story seems to even transcend the Walter & The Beaver relationship, especially in terms of emotional resonance (at least for me).

That said, I’m not sure these concerns are enough to undercut the power of this script as it gets transformed into a movie. The characters are so richly drawn, the dialogue so smart, the humor biting, the drama compelling and at times even profound. Plus, the script traffics in several interesting thematic elements:

* Identity: Who are you really? That question seems to be the subtext of much of what happens in the script. It’s most prominent with Walter and The Beaver, our attention bobbing back and forth from one to the other, trying to determine who is really behind what’s happening. But also Porter in grappling with his destiny (per his father’s dark shadow over him), Norah shifting gears in her path in response to her brother’s sudden death, Henry who moves from an almost invisible entity to a woodworking machine, Meredith whose soccer mom identity is challenged by living with a puppet wearing freak. So in sum after we read FADE OUT, the lingering question becomes one directed at the reader: Who are you?

* Legacy: Can Walter overcome his depression? Can Porter overcome his father’s dark shadow? Can Norah overcome the dark shadow of her brother’s death? Those legacy issues permeate each of these characters’ storylines.

* Box: And for me, this is the most interesting thematic element in the script — the idea of a box. There are boxes in evidence throughout the script: Boxes when Walter moves out, memory boxes that Henry builds, boxes when Meredith and the boys move out of the house, the box (coffin) Walter builds for The Beaver. But then there are more figurative boxes: How The Beaver boxes in Walter as The Beaver step-by-step takes over Walter’s life, the side-by-side boxes of Norah and her brother’s bedrooms, the box of Porter’s bedroom, one wall of which Porter pound his head in an effort to escape. A lot of times when you read a script, you don’t know if the writer was conscious of a theme or recurring set of images or not — they could have arisen from the writer’s unconscious. But I’ve got to believe that the writer knew that he was onto something with these recurring images of boxes.

SUMMARY

I can see why Hwood readers liked the script so much. It’s a great read — clean pages, smart transitions, a nice narrative pull, several surprises in the plot, mature take on the material, and of course a compelling concept at its core. I can also see why no major studio made an offer on the script because of a core question: Will this concept fly with audiences? Even if Jim Carrey stars in the movie, might the buzz be, “Oh, no, it’s another one of his weird movies, not a really funny one,” and in the past, we’ve seen some of those movies tank at the box office. And despite the story’s American Beauty feel to it — a drama-comedy about American suburban life with satirical overtones — there is some distance between the subject matter and the emotional world created because of The Beaver. As it stands in the way between all the story’s characters and Walter, so too with the reader.

But this is a movie that deserves to get produced. I’m not sure if the script will get rewritten to address any of the concerns I pointed out (or others), but in a way, I’d be curious to see it get shot the way it’s written. I’d like to see if it works as is.